Childcare costs - a Goverment subsidy

mamba80

I just heard that from 2015 a couple earning up to £150k (and i believe that is the max each parent can earn) can claim back £1200 in childcare costs per child.
Only available to couples and only if both working.

so a single parent wanting to work or in work will get nothing, regardless of why they are a single parent or their income, what would happen if one parent should die?

Just why should i or anyone one else, subsidise the life style choices of very wealthy families?
I dont mind my taxes going to poor families to give them the opportunities my kids have, but anyone on a combined income of 300k can afford their own swedish nanny (must be registered childcare).

seems like a pre election bribe to all those middle, upper i/c voters who lost out on their child benefit..what a fxxked up way to run a country !

natrix

mamba80 wrote:

so a single parent wanting to work or in work will get nothing

Why not read the details before spouting off???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21833929

"To be eligible for the new support both parents will have to work - or the one parent in the case of lone parent families "

Tom Butcher

Seems reasonable to me - the state imposes certain obligations on parents (eg you can't send them out to work as chimney sweeps age 5, you can be taken to court for not ensuring they are in school etc) so it's not unreasonable for the state to give parents some support.

There is a relatively modest upper limit so it's not aimed at people employing a nanny just people who need to use childcare in order to work.

Frank the tank

If you're on £150K a year you're well able to afford childcare and don't need subsidising by people earning considerably less.

daviesee

They have to offer these bribes.
If they don't, some parents may realise that its not financially worth it for both to be working only to pay for child care. One parent may as well stay home.
That means less income tax for the Government and more on the unemployed list. Plus, less child minders are required leading to less income tax again, and higher unemployed again.
Gotta keep the wheels spinning and the taxes coming in.

pliptrot

daviesee wrote:

They have to offer these bribes.
If they don't, some parents may realise that its not financially worth it for both to be working only to pay for child care. One parent may as well stay home.
That means less income tax for the Government and more on the unemployed list. Plus, less child minders are required leading to less income tax again, and higher unemployed again.
Gotta keep the wheels spinning and the taxes coming in.

More profound input from our friends on the right-wing. You make nearly as much sense as the chancellor.

daviesee

pliptrot wrote:

daviesee wrote:

They have to offer these bribes.
If they don't, some parents may realise that its not financially worth it for both to be working only to pay for child care. One parent may as well stay home.
That means less income tax for the Government and more on the unemployed list. Plus, less child minders are required leading to less income tax again, and higher unemployed again.
Gotta keep the wheels spinning and the taxes coming in.

More profound input from our friends on the right-wing. You make nearly as much sense as the chancellor.

Point out my errors for my education please.
I know several young mothers. Some do not work because it is not worth it. Some work to socialise. None have high paying jobs.
The only losers if they give up working is the Government and child minders.

Daz555

My wife and I are both part of the lucky 5% who work for an employer who is part of the vouchers scheme which means we get to pay a significant portion of our childcare costs out of our gross salary.

The cost of childcare in the UK is economically damaging. It needs sorting out.

daviesee

David Cameron slurs stay at home mothers -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thers.html

'Cos staying at home to raise your own children is not "aspirational enough". :roll:

I wonder who was raised by a nanny and went to boarding school.

tiredofwhiners

Daz555 wrote:

The cost of childcare in the UK is economically damaging. It needs sorting out.

You mean you want the right to have kids and have someone else pick up the bill then. That attitude of expecting others to pay your way has been the most damaging attitude of the last couple of decades - expecting the state to tax someone else so you don't have to pay your way.

If you cannot afford a child on your salary(ies), then don't have them. It is that simple. The UK population growth doesn't actually need subsidies to go up.

Drfabulous0

daviesee wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

daviesee wrote:

They have to offer these bribes.
If they don't, some parents may realise that its not financially worth it for both to be working only to pay for child care. One parent may as well stay home.
That means less income tax for the Government and more on the unemployed list. Plus, less child minders are required leading to less income tax again, and higher unemployed again.
Gotta keep the wheels spinning and the taxes coming in.

More profound input from our friends on the right-wing. You make nearly as much sense as the chancellor.

Point out my errors for my education please.
I know several young mothers. Some do not work because it is not worth it. Some work to socialise. None have high paying jobs.
The only losers if they give up working is the Government and child minders.

Most stay at home parents do so because we consider bringing up our children to be more important than the aquisition of wealth, even if it means we have to make some sacrifices. If we do choose to stay at home with kids we are excluded from unemployment figures because we are not looking for work or claiming jobseekers. There would never be less childminders required, there is a huge shortage and the government last year raised the amount of children each one may look after to a level generally accepted to be dangerous and impractical. You will find plenty of folk can't work due to lack of availability of childminders rather than the cost. This is already paid for through the childcare element of Tax Credits anyway.

@tiredofwhiners please read Daz555's comment again, he clearly states that the cost needs sorting out, he does not say it needs subsidising, that is clearly counter productive.

daviesee

Drfabulous0 wrote:

.................
Most stay at home parents do so because we consider bringing up our children to be more important than the aquisition of wealth, even if it means we have to make some sacrifices. If we do choose to stay at home with kids we are excluded from unemployment figures because we are not looking for work or claiming jobseekers. There would never be less childminders required, there is a huge shortage and the government last year raised the amount of children each one may look after to a level generally accepted to be dangerous and impractical. You will find plenty of folk can't work due to lack of availability of childminders rather than the cost. This is already paid for through the childcare element of Tax Credits anyway......

Not only is that not my error (Exception of unemployment numbers, never knew that), it was my point. :?:
Badly worded point, obviously.

Frank the tank

My wife stopped at home to bring up both of our children and I worked all hours god sent and the buget was tight but we wouldn't have had it any other way.

Parenting is the hardest and most important job you ever do, and, it's a life long job 'til you die.

I don't have any grand-children (yet) and we'll help to the extent but I would draw a line at babysitting full time while they go to work. We brought our children up I would expect them to do the same.

SpainSte

daviesee wrote:

David Cameron slurs stay at home mothers -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thers.html

'Cos staying at home to raise your own children is not "aspirational enough". :roll:

I wonder who was raised by a nanny and went to boarding school.

If one parent is staying at home to look after the kids why on earth do they need help with childcare?

SpainSte

pliptrot wrote:

daviesee wrote:

They have to offer these bribes.
If they don't, some parents may realise that its not financially worth it for both to be working only to pay for child care. One parent may as well stay home.
That means less income tax for the Government and more on the unemployed list. Plus, less child minders are required leading to less income tax again, and higher unemployed again.
Gotta keep the wheels spinning and the taxes coming in.

More profound input from our friends on the right-wing. You make nearly as much sense as the chancellor.

But of course!! Our left wing friends know everything! You sound just like Ed Balls!

Daz555

tiredofwhiners wrote:

If you cannot afford a child on your salary(ies), then don't have them. It is that simple. The UK population growth doesn't actually need subsidies to go up.

Who said I could not afford a child? The point here is to encourage people (mainly women) to remain economically active whilst they are raising children. Nothing the government is proposing will have any impact on the numbers of children being born each year - that is a separate issue.

daviesee

SpainSte wrote:

If one parent is staying at home to look after the kids why on earth do they need help with childcare?

The point is that the Government doesn't want anyone staying at home to raise children.
All parents are to work and pay people to raise their children.
Sounds like a wonderful society. :roll:

tiredofwhiners

Daz555 wrote:

Who said I could not afford a child?

You did implicitly by saying that the cost of childcare had to be sorted out (i.e. drop) so that you (and others) could afford it.

Daz555 wrote:

The point here is to encourage people (mainly women) to remain economically active whilst they are raising children.

In other words, subsidies from other people.

Daz555 wrote:

Nothing the government is proposing will have any impact on the numbers of children being born each year - that is a separate issue.

Indeed, however the more subsidies, the more children are born as those who are socially and economically prudent who can now afford to bring up a child, will do so. But you are right that the proposal does not in itself stop the economically illiterate from breeding with a high dependence upon the state. Perhaps slowly, the cap on welfare will remove any 'incentive' for the dependent parts of the welfare state to take up the offer of free contraception as they will not get any more money, nor a larger house simply because they choose through action or inaction, to have more children.

It is a sad fact that the caps on childcare and welfare, will have a measurable effect on responsible couples/parents, but not affect that proportion of society who cause the heaviest load on the welfare state. But not doing it is even worse.

BillyMansell

tiredofwhiners wrote:

It is a sad fact that the caps on childcare and welfare, will have a measurable effect on responsible couples/parents, but not affect that proportion of society who cause the heaviest load on the welfare state. But not doing it is even worse.

As the elderly are the heaviest load on the welfare state we do need to do more to reduce their entitlement if not their numbers. Means testing their benefits would be a start before looking at the value of their economic activity.

fast as fupp

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

The cost of childcare in the UK is economically damaging. It needs sorting out.

You mean you want the right to have kids and have someone else pick up the bill then. That attitude of expecting others to pay your way has been the most damaging attitude of the last couple of decades - expecting the state to tax someone else so you don't have to pay your way.

If you cannot afford a child on your salary(ies), then don't have them. It is that simple. The UK population growth doesn't actually need subsidies to go up.

i cant believe this, but, for once, i agree with you!

*goes for lie down*

daviesee

BillyMansell wrote:

As the elderly are the heaviest load on the welfare state we do need to do more to reduce their entitlement if not their numbers. Means testing their benefits would be a start before looking at the value of their economic activity.

Really?
A big fan of the Logan's Run scenario then? What age is the cut off and how old are you? :roll:
I have retired members of my family that are of more use to society than some of the younger members of my family.
To paraphrase, society is not a zero sum game.

Daz555

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Who said I could not afford a child?

You did implicitly by saying that the cost of childcare had to be sorted out (i.e. drop) so that you (and others) could afford it.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it needed sorting out as it was economically damaging. The implication is because it discourages far too many people (usually women) from remaining in employment.

Now whether a parent should stay at home to raise the children or not is an entirely different debate but we should consider that pay equality means that this is unlikely to be a realistic prospect for many families. There was a time when one partner (the male) would take home 80% of the family budget even if his wife was working full time - well due to pay equality this is becoming rarer - pay is split more equally among the sexes and this reduces the options for stay at home parents because the financial hit is far greater when they quit work.

This is why keeping both parents economically active is so vital.


......hang on....looking back at my argument I think we can pin the whole problem on the feminists!

BillyMansell

daviesee wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

As the elderly are the heaviest load on the welfare state we do need to do more to reduce their entitlement if not their numbers. Means testing their benefits would be a start before looking at the value of their economic activity.

Really?
A big fan of the Logan's Run scenario then? What age is the cut off and how old are you? :roll:

Never heard of the Liverpool Care Pathway or DNR? We already assist people in dying.

I have retired members of my family that are of more use to society than some of the younger members of my family.

We can all find examples, no matter how small, to suit our agenda but by your own admission you must have some other young members of your family that are more use to society than the retired members. In addition, the retired members are in terminal decline so to continue to look at them for future support or increased economic activity is sentimental but myopic.

To paraphrase, society is not a zero sum game.

You're right, society is not a zero sum game, many babyboomers were given every opportunity, often for free or paid to participate, pissed it up the wall and continue to believe in their entitlement leaving future generations to pick up the debt.

Financially supporting economically inactive retired people through welfare, health and social care so the may be able to assist in childcare so parents can work is one thing but continuing to financially support economically inactive retirees who use their winter fuel allowances to play a round of golf is absurd.

daviesee

BillyMansell wrote:

Financially supporting economically inactive retired people through welfare, health and social care so the may be able to assist in childcare so parents can work is one thing but continuing to financially support economically inactive retirees who use their winter fuel allowances to play a round of golf is absurd.

Do you really believe that someone in their 70s is capable of looking after a couple of 2 or 3 year olds?
Those pensioners have done their bit by raising their children, without subsidy and usually only on one wage. They did not have it as easy as you portray. It is now their children's and grandchildren's turn to raise their children.
Quite frankly, the idea of working till you are incapable, or choose not to work once you have a pension accrued, and then being put down is not a society I want to live in.
For balance, I do believe in euthanasia which is a completely different subject.

BillyMansell

daviesee wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Financially supporting economically inactive retired people through welfare, health and social care so the may be able to assist in childcare so parents can work is one thing but continuing to financially support economically inactive retirees who use their winter fuel allowances to play a round of golf is absurd.

Do you really believe that someone in their 70s is capable of looking after a couple of 2 or 3 year olds?
Those pensioners have done their bit by raising their children, without subsidy and usually only on one wage. They did not have it as easy as you portray. It is now their children's and grandchildren's turn to raise their children.
Quite frankly, the idea of working till you are incapable, or choose not to work once you have a pension accrued, and then being put down is not a society I want to live in.
For balance, I do believe in euthanasia which is a completely different subject.

My dad's in his late 70s now and continues to enjoy caring for the grand-children and the children enjoy him being part of their lives. Also, when I was a kid child benefit and free school milk existed (can't think of any more right now) so subsidies in child care have been around for quite some time.

The extended family has existed since time immemorial but has it all of a sudden to be written out of history? What happens when the older generation who've gone off to do their own thing realise they need to be cared for and find the children and grand-children they disenfranchised from their lives no longer care for them?

My portraying of old people as wasteful and feckless is a counterpoint to the generalisations of both the young and the old - all the young aren't wasteful and feckless and all the old didn't haven't it hard and weren't diligent in their spending. People can paint the younger generations as feckless or stay at home parents as greedy but by continually disparaging the future income earners they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that paints a pretty bleak future for Britain.

daviesee

BillyMansell wrote:

My portraying of old people as wasteful and feckless is a counterpoint to the generalisations of both the young and the old - all the young aren't wasteful and feckless and all the old didn't haven't it hard and weren't diligent in their spending. People can paint the younger generations as feckless or stay at home parents as greedy but by continually disparaging the future income earners they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that paints a pretty bleak future for Britain.

I believe you meant that all the young aren't wasteful & feckless and all the old didn't have it easy nor were negligent.
In that case, amen, and I am out.
If not, you are wrong, and I am out.

SpainSte

daviesee wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

If one parent is staying at home to look after the kids why on earth do they need help with childcare?

The point is that the Government doesn't want anyone staying at home to raise children.
All parents are to work and pay people to raise their children.
Sounds like a wonderful society. :roll:

It doesnt say that anywhere, and that wasn't the question. This benefit is for those who need to use childcare because the parents are at work. If a parent stays at home to look after the kids they dont need help with that.

daviesee

SpainSte wrote:

daviesee wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

If one parent is staying at home to look after the kids why on earth do they need help with childcare?

The point is that the Government doesn't want anyone staying at home to raise children.
All parents are to work and pay people to raise their children.
Sounds like a wonderful society. :roll:

It doesnt say that anywhere, and that wasn't the question. This benefit is for those who need to use childcare because the parents are at work. If a parent stays at home to look after the kids they dont need help with that.

Drawn back in again, drat it!
From earlier, read this and reconsider - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thers.html

Frank the tank

Daz555 wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Who said I could not afford a child?

You did implicitly by saying that the cost of childcare had to be sorted out (i.e. drop) so that you (and others) could afford it.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it needed sorting out as it was economically damaging. The implication is because it discourages far too many people (usually women) from remaining in employment.

Now whether a parent should stay at home to raise the children or not is an entirely different debate but we should consider that pay equality means that this is unlikely to be a realistic prospect for many families. There was a time when one partner (the male) would take home 80% of the family budget even if his wife was working full time - well due to pay equality this is becoming rarer - pay is split more equally among the sexes and this reduces the options for stay at home parents because the financial hit is far greater when they quit work.

This is why keeping both parents economically active is so vital.


......hang on....looking back at my argument I think we can pin the whole problem on the feminists!

Or our old friend the financial institutions.

When I took out my first mortgage the only thing the lender would take into consideration was the earnings of the main bread winner and even then only lend x3 my yearly earnings. The reason both have to go to work is because everyone got greedy. Oh we'll lend you x5 both your combined incomes, net result house prices go up along with all the debt aswell.

SpainSte

daviesee wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

daviesee wrote:

SpainSte wrote:

If one parent is staying at home to look after the kids why on earth do they need help with childcare?

The point is that the Government doesn't want anyone staying at home to raise children.
All parents are to work and pay people to raise their children.
Sounds like a wonderful society. :roll:

It doesnt say that anywhere, and that wasn't the question. This benefit is for those who need to use childcare because the parents are at work. If a parent stays at home to look after the kids they dont need help with that.

Drawn back in again, drat it!
From earlier, read this and reconsider - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thers.html

I've read the link, and the question remains - why do mothers (or fathers) who stay at home to look after their kids need extra help with childcare costs?

daviesee

SpainSte wrote:

I've read the link, and the question remains - why do mothers (or fathers) who stay at home to look after their kids need extra help with childcare costs?

I don't think they do, we probably agree.
The point is that David Cameron (the Government) thinks neither parent should stay at home, they should both be out working. By the way, don't the Tories dislike Government interfering in people's lives :?: :?