MSE News: Government urged to help struggling families on childcare

FATBALLZ

Ferdy147 wrote: »

It's not the cost of childcare that needs to come down....it's the cost of living.

If house prices were to come down then you wouldn't have people with mortgages at a stupid multiple of their joint income. This would mean families where both parents work would have more disposable income.

Don't agree, I'm afraid childcare costs are the one thing that make the average house at £160k look like a bargain. I'm looking to buy a house in the next few weeks with a mortgage of £700 a month. My childcare costs £591 a month already, for one child, 4 days a week. Full time childcare would cost more than the mortgage.

We want another child, and ideally wanted it within a couple of years of our first, so they can play together. Guess what? I can't afford it, it would cost near enough £1200 a month.

Only the scroungers and the seriously rich can afford more than one child under school age in today's society. Average, hard working decent people are priced out of family life.

Cleo03

anguk wrote: »

I know many women who would love to give up work so they could be SAHMs but they simply can't afford to because they have a mortgage to pay. If house prices were lower they would be able to manage on their OH's wage and of course as you say it would free up jobs for those who want to work.

I totally agree with you and 'Clearingout.' I would love to be a stay at home mother or work part time but due to having a mortgage, high child care cost and bills etc this is impossible. When my child was at nursery the fee was near enough the same as my mortgage. I really do think the cost of child care in this country should be reduced.

consumers_revenge

Can just about get away with the childcare costs but its the 60+ days the teachers take off that screw me and the mrs up ( 1x1yo and 1x6yo ). And thats with her not working 2 days a week and her mums 1 day also. How on earth does everyone else get away with it?

I would love for mrs to stay at home so we could bring the children up without knackering ourselves both out by trying to fit everything in. Just cant do it. and no Im not a scrounger I've worked since 16. My kids are the most important things to me, have no money cause it goes on them and providing a decent start for them. Just near impossible in this climate.

Lizling

Ferdy147 wrote: »

Then the 'do without' within the sentance you've quoted would apply.

There's things I can't afford so I do without. There's things I can afford but don't need so I do without.

We have no automatic right to have something when we can't afford it unless that's basic food/shelter/safety requirements.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. The post that was in response to was about buying a starter home. You responded with "Whatever happened to do without until you've saved enough to buy."

I take this to mean that you don't think people should take out mortgages.

Now, I earn a good (above average) wage as does my partner, but we will never be able to buy even the smallest flat anywhere in the region - ever. A deposit and mortgage is just about within the realms of possibility, but saving until I've got enough money (£230,000 far a small flat and still rising around here) before buying?! It's a rare FTB who could manage that, and certainly nothing to do with needing to cut back on luxuries.

Anyway, to bring this back on topic a bit: I'm stuck renting for now. I will not start a family when I could be kicked out of my flat at a month or 2's notice. Unless I can get roughly a 90% mortgage within about the next 5 years, that means no kids for me. That's one way to sort out the childcare fees problem.:(

Marisco

I think there might be a few wires crossed here:o It was actually me who said do without until you can afford it. I wasn't of course, talking about mortgages, as that would be impossible!! But these days people expect to go into a house and have all the latest whathaveyous straight away!! This is what causes a lot of debt, instead of making do and saving for things, people expect to be in the same position from the start, as someone who has worked for years and built up a home!

Even now, I won't have a CC, and we had a banger for years, (it went, just!!:)) whilst we saved for a better car. But Ferdy is right, if house prices and/or rent were more realistic, it would help!! Anguk was right, what people should do is start small and work your way up, not start large and get larger!!:)

evespikey

Ferdy147 wrote: »

If your weekly childcare costs are more than your weekly wage then surely there's no point in working and you'd be better off at home? Personally I'd rather you stayed at home and raised your own child as you surely could do a better job than childcare. If the net effect of you working is it costs the taxpayer more (because your childcare is more than you earn) then I'd rather you stayed home as that would be best for your child.

The issue here is that more government support for childcare will result in higher childcare costs so the net benefit will be negligible or negative.

I just wanted to say that I completely disagree that "if the net effect of you working is it costs the taxpayer more than I'd rather you stayed at home."

I support getting people into work, learning skills, benefiting themselves and others, and becoming responsible citizens. If I were a taxpayer I would be happy for my tax to support you in work if that was what you wanted (alternative to a SAHM) even if it costs me more in tax than it would if you were a SAHM.

The tax system shouldn't discourage people from working. I think most people agree on that and it's sad that the way benefits are structured and given out seems to both:
-keep mums at home who don't want to be (because if they worked they would have less money as benefits would be cut)
-and, keep mums at work who want to be SAHMs (since childcare costs are too high for them to leave work)

Mums should be able to choose what is best for themselves, their family and children and it seems the way the welfare state is at the moment is preventing that choice.

kelloggs36

It annoys me that childcare providers always assume that everybody qualifies for tax credits when we don't! Even though we earn enough on paper, the reality is that paying full childcare costs makes us much worse off than those who do qualify. I am speaking hypothetically now, as my children are old enough that they need minimal childcare but the costs are now astronomical and yet nurseries claim that they provide 'affordable childcare' - affordable if you get tax credits to pay for the care, unaffordable otherwise! Whenmy middle child was a baby, I used a childminder and paid £50 per week for full-time care which was not too bad, but I was only earning circa £9k at the time and my husband £17k. When my youngest was born, I inquired about full-time care at the local nursery and was told that it was £120 per week - so almost 3 times what I had been paying previously; was it a coincidence that it was tax credits for childcare had just come in? I took a career break as I couldn't bear to be away from my baby, and we had to cut back but we were lucky as my hubby's wage just about covered our outgoings - lots of people aren't so lucky.

suzana22

we had to have our 2 kids 4 years apart to be able to afford the childcare...we couldn't possibly afford 2 lots of nursery fees at the same time!
My husband now just earns in the higher tax bracket - we've still got one lot of nursery fees and so we are now going to lose our child benefit which is the spare money I have to pay for Cubs & swimming lessons. I work part-time but it will impact our life but I count my blessings...
I feel sorry for the families where they have made the decision for 1 parent to go out to work and earn a decent salary and the other to stay at home to look after the kids and count on their CB.....