Childcare is bloody expensive!

pjcox2005

andydownes123 wrote: »

Yep totally agree. You decided to have children, so be there for your children. You can't have your cake AND eat it. You either work and pay the childcare if you want to work THAT BADLY, or you stay at home and be the mum you wanted to be. Sounds like the costs are about the same.

Funnily enough, many people think that the responsibility for raising their children belongs to both parents having both decided to have them, and also both parents want to spend time with the children.


Are you stating from this and your next comment that both parents should stay at home to raise them and expect someone else to pick up the tab till they go to school?


OPs question was perfectly normal and just a choice of view, as well as it being considered by many (politicians, economic bodies, every day man on the street) that cost of childcare is a key issue. It doesn't need the sense of aggression you've put in your post.

Tabbytabitha

Why are you counting it against your income rather than the household's income or your husband's? It isn't a cost that you personally are incurring.

Hutchch0920

andydownes123 wrote: »

The system is like this to encourage mums to stay at home and do the thing they wanted in the first place.

Seriously, how antiquated are your views.

Go find another corner of the internet to keyboard warrior in.

System

Hutchch0920 wrote: »

Seriously, how antiquated are your views.

Go find another corner of the internet to keyboard warrior in.

Ouch. No need.

Sorry to inflict my 'antiquated views' on your precious, more valid and therefore greater than thou counter argument. If antiquated you mean, stating what the government's thinking was behind the whole not paying childcare from year dot, I suppose you have a point. Bang to rights! You win.

Hutchch0920

andydownes123 wrote: »

Ouch. You know that is why childcare doesn't start until a few years later...it's to encourage parents to stay at home...that's why it's like that

That's better.

System

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Are you stating from this and your next comment that both parents should stay at home to raise them and expect someone else to pick up the tab till they go to school?

Absolutely not. More that I see parents spending excessive amounts of money on care that perhaps, fiscally speaking, would be better spent as time with their children.

Spending all my wages for someone else to see my child all day seems the wrong way to approach having children in the first place.

Comms69

andydownes123 wrote: »

Absolutely not. More that I see parents spending excessive amounts of money on care that perhaps, fiscally speaking, would be better spent as time with their children.

Spending all my wages for someone else to see my child all day seems the wrong way to approach having children in the first place.

I don't see what this has to do with anything except your personal choice?

sulphate

andydownes123 wrote: »

The system is like this to encourage mums to stay at home and do the thing they wanted in the first place.

Nonsense. Do you have something against mothers who work?

The reason childcare is costly is because of the overheads involved. Nurseries for example have to adhere to the relevant staff:child ratio. For children under 2, the ratio is 1 adult to 3 children. That’s why childcare for under 2s is most expensive then it gradually gets cheaper as the child gets older and slightly less dependent. These ratios are set by the Department of Health. Now, the staff who look after the children have to be paid. There are also staff required in nurseries that don’t look after the children directly, nursery managers for example, but they need to be paid too. Then you’ve got the costs for running the nursery itself - rent, bills, food, etc etc.

The whole reason that childcare help exists - government help with costs for under privileged 2 year olds, 15/30 hours free for 3+ year olds, tax credits, childcare voucher schemes through employers, tax free childcare, is to encourage parents back to work.

I work 3 days a week and if we paid for 3 full days at nursery (my son only goes 1 day) then it would barely be worth me working. However, if i stopped working I wouldn’t get a pay rise every year, I wouldn’t be able to put anything into a pension and there’s zero chance of getting promoted. Lots of parents who take x amount of years off work to raise a family can struggle to find a job after so long out of the workplace. This is especially the case if they want part time flexible hours to fit in with the school run, because a lot of them have already been taken by those who have worked since their children were babies.

Savvy_Sue

Bhawen wrote: »

Hi, would it be possible for you and your husband to work from home 2-3 days a week taking care of your new born hence reducing the cost if the childminder, olus noe the 30+free hours is in so that would help.

If you were contemplating this, make sure you phrase your request very carefully. There are very few jobs you can really do AT THE SAME TIME as taking care of a child - and it gets harder once they start moving around!

I've known two fairly daft requests to work from home post maternity leave. One gave no indication that she'd be using childcare, and her job involved seeing vulnerable clients on a one-to-one basis. On a safeguarding basis, that was impossible. Another was a standard office job, and this person wanted to work from home on some days, and start at 7.30 am on others. Well, I know there is now SOME technology available which would allow you to see who's ringing the doorbell at work and answer the phone, but it's still quite difficult to deal with visitors and deliveries when you're off-site.

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Why are you counting it against your income rather than the household's income or your husband's? It isn't a cost that you personally are incurring.

Yup, I've always wondered why people do that.

System

sulphate wrote: »

Nonsense. Do you have something against mothers who work?

The reason childcare is costly is because of the overheads involved. Nurseries for example have to adhere to the relevant staff:child ratio. For children under 2, the ratio is 1 adult to 3 children. That’s why childcare for under 2s is most expensive then it gradually gets cheaper as the child gets older and slightly less dependent. These ratios are set by the Department of Health. Now, the staff who look after the children have to be paid. There are also staff required in nurseries that don’t look after the children directly, nursery managers for example, but they need to be paid too. Then you’ve got the costs for running the nursery itself - rent, bills, food, etc etc.

The whole reason that childcare help exists - government help with costs for under privileged 2 year olds, 15/30 hours free for 3+ year olds, tax credits, childcare voucher schemes through employers, tax free childcare, is to encourage parents back to work.

I work 3 days a week and if we paid for 3 full days at nursery (my son only goes 1 day) then it would barely be worth me working. However, if i stopped working I wouldn’t get a pay rise every year, I wouldn’t be able to put anything into a pension and there’s zero chance of getting promoted. Lots of parents who take x amount of years off work to raise a family can struggle to find a job after so long out of the workplace. This is especially the case if they want part time flexible hours to fit in with the school run, because a lot of them have already been taken by those who have worked since their children were babies.

You are missing my point and again, another poster being personal. No I have nothing against anybody. Do what you like. You are clearly a parent that went straight back to work. Your choice, that's fine.

My point, again is...I know it's expensive. I know why it's expensive. However, there is little or no funding at the beginning to make it very expensive, which in turn is to encourage parents to stay at home for the first few years. Which I believe, I'm sure you do to, is the best thing for any child/parent relationship, especially at the very beginning.

The government want parents to look after their children in their formative years, because of this there are no subsidies for child care. I don't understand why parents wouldn't want to do this. Instead we have culture of having everything on top of family/child.

I want a child, I want my career, I want child subsidies, I want my pension, I want my promotion, I want my pay rise, I want, I want, I want! What about what the child wants/needs?