Child Benefit- is is now means tested?

Person_one

tooldle wrote: »

Yes, 10 hours for a full day, 5 hours for a half day. It doesn't of course mean that the child has to be there for a full ten hours. Although that said if only one parent is able to drop off and pick up, combined with a commute, I can see how you could get close to 10 hours. Other nurseries may be different, but that is how ours operated.

Then I guess I don't understand why you'd bother having children if you're going to give them to someone else for 10 hours 5 or 6 days a week. A cat might have been a better option!

(General you, of course!)

tooldle

why the personal attack? Just stating facts on how our nursery worked.

Person_one

tooldle wrote: »

why the personal attack? Just stating facts on how our nursery worked.

Sigh, not personal:

(General you, of course!)

Kimberley82

Person_one wrote: »

Then I guess I don't understand why you'd bother having children if you're going to give them to someone else for 10 hours 5 or 6 days a week. A cat might have been a better option!

(General you, of course!)

Because people need to make a living,

Person_one

Kimberley82 wrote: »

Because people need to make a living,

Apparently, they need to make a living in order to spend it all on childcare according to this thread!

fannyanna

I too think the governments plan to put a cap on child benefit is crazy for the precise reasons that have already been outlined.

I stumbled across a really interesting post a while ago that compared two families. One was a very low income family and therefore eligible to a variety of benefits and the other was what is deemed as a moderately high income family. It absolutely amazed me that once you added up the benefits people were eligible to receive these families had pretty much the same income to live on.

P.S. Where I live (South East) £1,000 per month are average (and possibly on the low side) nursery costs for one child.

sweaty_betty

Person_one wrote: »

Then I guess I don't understand why you'd bother having children if you're going to give them to someone else for 10 hours 5 or 6 days a week. A cat might have been a better option!

(General you, of course!)

I'm afraid a 10 hour day is easily done. We drop off at 8am, I get to work for 830-845, work a 7.5 hour day, plus 30-60 mins lunch hour, leave work somewhere between 430-515pm (depending on arrival, lunch hour etc), drive home and pick up just in time for nursery closing at 6pm. And that's not taking into account a longer commute or longer working hours that others have to deal with.

It's not ideal, I'd rather spend more time with my child, which is why I've chosen to work 4 days rather than full time (nursery costs £700/month for 4 days/week).

The other option is to give up work and be a stay-at-home mum but if we did that we wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage (on OH money - I bought the house originally, so the amount borrowed is based on my FT salary) and we'd be in financial dire straits.

I also can't afford to have another child until subsided nursery places kick in.

At the end of the day we all want to do the best we can for our children. If that means paying large amounts for child care, that's the pill that needs to be swallowed...

Person_one

Why don't more dads go part time so they can share the care?

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

Apparently, they need to make a living in order to spend it all on childcare according to this thread!

My husband and I are currently trying for a baby. We’ve had to wait for many years to get to a point where we are financially secure and will be able to afford to have a baby. This is on the basis that we live in a one bedroom flat and when the baby arrives it would be ideal (but not necessary) to live in a two bedroom property (which will increase our monthly outgoings). In addition we will need to find about £1,000 a month to pay for full time childcare. Whilst I would love to be a stay at home Mum this just will not be feasible for us. I earn more than my husband so my salary is heavily relied on. In addition my husband already has children and pays 20% of his salary as child maintenance. There is absolutely no way that 80% of my husbands salary would provide for me and him let alone me, him and a baby (and possibly a larger property).

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

My husband and I are currently trying for a baby. We’ve had to wait for many years to get to a point where we are financially secure and will be able to afford to have a baby. This is on the basis that we live in a one bedroom flat and when the baby arrives it would be ideal (but not necessary) to live in a two bedroom property (which will increase our monthly outgoings). In addition we will need to find about £1,000 a month to pay for full time childcare. Whilst I would love to be a stay at home Mum this just will not be feasible for us. I earn more than my husband so my salary is heavily relied on. In addition my husband already has children and pays 20% of his salary as child maintenance. There is absolutely no way that 80% of my husbands salary would provide for me and him let alone me, him and a baby (and possibly a larger property).

Has your husband considered being a SAHD, or going part time seeing as you're the higher earner?

(Of course, you shouldn't short change his existing children in the process.)