Child Care is costing us the equivelent of a mortgage!

Bitsy_Beans

vroombroom wrote: »

can I ask how people paid for childcare before tax credits and vouchers and stuff?

Well when my mum had me and my brother is was a case of losing your job, either work shifts or be a SAHM. Did families live closer to one another so that the reality was kids could be looked after by other members of family. then there is local community - neighbours helped each other out more (although whilst I like community feel I don't think I like the idea of my kids being passed around pillar to post ).

I am not sure what the answer is really. There IS more commercialism prevalent these days, people do expect to buy stuff new, less make do and mend (although I suspect on MSE many posters would probably be the exception to the rule ) and whether you like it or not these days it would appear to require two wages in order to buy a house. So it would seem that if you want to go back to work it's gonna cost and if the government wants to encourage people into the work force then carrot and stick approach to subsidising child care is the way to go.

Anyway just my thoughts

clearingout

anguk wrote: »

Back then there wasn't as many nurseries either, it was very hard to find decent childcare, more nurseries only really started appearing once tax credits were introduced.

I will say though that nursery fees were cheaper back then, the fees went up when tax credits were introduced. It's a vicious circle really, nurseries knew parents could now get tax credits and help towards childcare so they put their fees up, parents are now trapped claiming help because the fees are so high. It's ended up costing parents and the government a lot of money for childcare, the only people who seem to have benefited are the nursery owners.

Something similar has happened with employers. Many used to employ people full-time but when tax credits were introduced they employed part-time workers (at a much cheaper rate) because they knew the government would top up their wages.

I disagree. Many parents, particularly mothers, benefit from knowing that they can afford decent childcare (I acknowlege it isn't all decent) and are still able to progress in their career or keep their career on the back burner, bubbling a long a bit. As someone who made the massive mistake of making my now ex-husband's dreams my own when I married him, I can assure you that I would not be in the position I am today (reliant on benefits and tax credits with three small children) if I hadn't given up working (and along with it my own career aspirations). Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I do like to think that as a nation, we are beneftting thousands of women (and thus their children) in keeping their hands in, keeping their promotion opportunities alive and ultimately helping them maintain their independence, whether or not their relationship breaks down. I see nothing at all 'bad' in this.

I particularly disagree with your second point. There has been a huge shift in recent years in how we view work-life balance and family-friendly work environments along with a whole host of UK and European Law to back this up. More people are working part-time, I believe, because they choose to do so, can afford to do so (of course there is a 'wouldn't be able to do it without tax credits' argument in there somewhere!) and because their employers are looking at more creative ways of getting their work done. More and more people are able to work from home as a result of improvements in technology. Again, a legal obligation to at least consider part-time working has a positive effect on those who previously might have had to stop working (see above).

Finally, the world is changing and we no longer leave school at 16, go to work and receive a gold clock from that same company who took us on in our adolescence on the day we retire. When I went to university 20 years ago, it was unusual to see a mature student. Now it's the norm and universities are no longer a traditionally staid, boring and home of those who make academia a way of life. People can have a change of heart about who and what they are when children come and along and the system is there to back us up - hell, I'm about to re-train at 40 and can't wait! This is something my mum cannot understand at all.

I am not in disagreement that tax credits have created, at some level, dependency on state handouts and a culture of wanting more. But at a deeper level, I also think we will see a better educated, more well rounded, society of people willing to take chances and build up businesses safe in the knowledge they have a basic level of income behind them. I think that can only be a good thing in the long term if the country is to compete in an increasingly small global marketplace.

Teenie_D

When I had my DD I went back to work part time, 3 days a week and my Mum and Dad looked after her which was great. Unfortunately my Dad became really ill with pneumonia and was in hospital for a few weeks so they weren't really able to look after her so I had to put her into nursery. I could have given up work but I would have been worse off despite the nursery fees and if I am totally honest I wanted to go back to work, some people thrive on being at home with their littlies but that's just not for me.

I was extremely shocked by the cost of childcare and we didn't get much help with tax credits but we managed and I look back and kick myself for squandering the money we had previously to DD going to nursery. One of my first posts on this site was regarding the help with childcare costs and I must admit I am rather embarrassed that I thought it was my right to get help with the cost of it. :o
At one point I had to take on a second job for one day at the weekend as my DH's wages dropped due the climate and we really would have struggled then but I felt it was worth it to keep my main job which i really enjoy.

I am currently on ML and I am really enjoying it but again I will be going back to work PT. This time my MIL has offered to help out so between her and my parents who will take DD and DS one day a week each they will be in nursery for 1/2 day. I am not keen if I'm honest on my DS going into nursery so young, he will only be 8 months but I totally trust the nursery workers and my DD has certainly not suffered from being in childcare, she is a confident happy wee girl who has no problems with herr speech and is very well mannered.:)

You have to do what is best for everyone all round, what works for me isn't necessarily going to work for other people.

skintchick

onlyroz wrote: »

This is perfectly true ... for the first six-months to a year of your child's life. Then why can't the dad reduce his hours, if you want one parent to "be there" for the children?

No reason why not. Couples usually work that one out amongst themselves.

skintchick

Littlemiss-lotsofdebt wrote: »

I don't think I actually personalised that post to any particular group of people, but if you want to take offence than that is up to you. I still stand by my comments as do probably many other people who get sick to the back teeth of working their way up a career ladder, only to start a family and be penalised because they have a successful career, reasonable income and two parents. And yes, I have done the maths - if I kicked out OH and 'sat on my @ss' like our neighbour does, I'd be financially better off, how is that right??

I'm not offended, and didn;t take it personally, but I did very much disagree with you, and wanted to take issue with what you said. Did you actually read what I wrote? Do you really think parents who are at at home (whether on benefits or not) sit on the sofa all day?

Why are you being penalised? Do you not think that those less fortuante and unable to get a good career like yours are being helped? Same issue, different viewpoint.

If your feelings are all about your anger with your neighbour, rather than looking at the issue as a whole, then your viewpoint is rather narrow, is it not?

Sorry to be brief, but it's late, and I'm tired.

EDIT: I'm fresher now! While I can see why you feel you are being penalised, you aren't actually, because the system is set up to help those who need help. Now, you may argue that some people in receipt of that help are capable of working, and should do so, and I wouldn;t argue with you on that point, but it doesn't change the fact that even if all the people on benefits who can work, did so, you would still be paying for your childcare.

So to link the two is misleading.

But you still haven;t addressed my point. I want to know WHY you think that parents of small children spend all day sitting on the sofa? Or is it more convenient to think that, instead of understanding that parenting is hard work?

Additionally, can I ask you this. If the parents of small children who are on benefits could get a job, do you think they should? And put their children into paid childcare? Or are you happy that some of them will want to stay at home and parent full-time because, just like me, that is their choice?

And if you want them all to go into work and pay for childcare, do you feel that way because you feel, deep down, that you do not have a choice yourself?

I ask this because I tend to find that those people who have an issue with stay at home parents are those who would like to do it, but feel they cannot because they would lose their career progression, and that creates conflicts of emotion for them.

If that's the case, I totally understand, but I think you sshould examine yourself and be honest with where this vitriol is coming from, then perhaps you can address it instead of spewing bile over a whole group of people.

And yes, you did 'personalise that post to any particular group of people' because you were specifically talking about 'people on benefits who sit on their @rses all day'.

Fly_Baby

skintchick wrote: »

What is it with this assumption that parents who don't work (and yes I do know you mean people on benefits and not people like me) sit on the sofa all day? Do you not think they might be, er, PARENTING?

I would imagine those people are, just like the rest of us, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, wiping noses and bottoms, playing games and going to the park, none of which counts as 'sitting on their !!!!!! all day'

Exactly - just like the rest of us, who have the same household chores and parenting duties but do not get paid by the taxpayer to perform them and instead combine them with jobs.

It is not right when somebody "chooses" to stay at home with children and gets benefits for that - choices have to be self-funded, no?

seven-day-weekend

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Exactly - just like the rest of us, who have the same household chores and parenting duties but do not get paid by the taxpayer to perform them and instead combine them with jobs. But quite often they DON'T do the parenting - the nursery do. All some parents do is put the kids to bed!

It is not right when somebody "chooses" to stay at home with children and gets benefits for that - choices have to be self-funded, no?

I agree with this, but DO stay-at -home parents get Benefits if they are part of a couple?

I know I got none, but that was 25 years ago

Also see my comment in blue, in the quoted text.

Fly_Baby

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree with this, but DO stay-at -home parents get Benefits if they are part of a couple?

I know I got none, but that was 25 years ago

Also see my comment in blue, in the quoted text.

I work nearly full-time, I don't get any help with childcare due to "high income" (effectively not so high in SE where a 3-bed semi in a decent area costs 270-325K but the threshold is the same). And boy do I do PLENTY of parenting in the evening and in the weekend and so does my husband.

Stay at home parents get benefits, at least a good CTC, if the joint income is below the threshold.

andrealm

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree with this, but DO stay-at -home parents get Benefits if they are part of a couple?

I know I got none, but that was 25 years ago

Also see my comment in blue, in the quoted text.

There are no benefits for sahps as such, if the total household income is very low the family would get more tax credits. I am a sahm and dh works full time, we have a fairly average household income and get about £10 a week tax credits but we would have got exactly the same if I'd gone back to work, as our income would've still been within the same threshold. I think it's a bit of a myth that everybody is getting lots of help from tax credits or having childcare paid. When we had our first child dh earned 20k and I earned 10k, we wouldn't have qualified for help towards childcare costs.

hastie

luv this thread. It cuts to all that is uneven and unfair in this country!
My kids are both now going to school together, as of Sept, and my wife and I have worked so hard to look after them well, with us both working around each other without nursery assistance. Often at the expense of each other we have, we feel followed out moral compass as well as not giving up on our jobs.

The real issue is not the relative values of staying at home with kids against working full time, it is the fact that people who choose not to work, GAIN financially by shelling out children without the means to look after them. It is NOT a career path to have babies without working.

I bet there is not one person out there who feels, nothing about this thread, it defines this nation currently.