Child care costs in the UK

Confused_Fred

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 14, 2024
Messages
338
Reaction score
68
I think this is one of those subjects that so controversial these days. The only idea that the state provides quality child care for children so parents can go to work is a new idea in the UK.

When I was a child the idea of state-funded childcare was non-existent and it wasn't that long ago. Instead family members looked after children. Your grandmother or your aunties would take care of you if your mum needed to go out. I remember the batty old lady who seemed really old at the time, but couldn't have been more than 40 looking after me too. It was how things were done.

When I had my own children my wife never started work until the children reached the age of 9 even 10 when I think about it.

Often I would come home find family members in the house. It was normal. My sister or my mum or her sister or somebody's wife would we were related too. No one live that far apart.

So what's changed in the last 30 years?

Well let's start off with families. No one lives close to their family anymore. I don't think I've got family within 20 miles at this place now.

The idea that women worked full-time. You can't believe how new this is. When I was still an apprentice, I remember having a conversation with one of the older guys. He went nuts at the idea of his wife working full time. He saw it as a sign of poverty and an attack on his masculinity. My wife don't work !!!

I know women whose partners left who spent the whole life looking after their children. 20 years or more living on welfare.

Now let's look at aspirations in the last 20 years. The idea that you can buy your own home and have your own career as a woman is also new. You can have it all without a man !!!

I think about where all these new ideas are coming from. The only place I can think of his Parliament . Women MPs vote through things that will benefit their own lives and careers. They're the ones demanding childcare places and tax breaks for families with children.

I also have to think about what's changed socially in the last 20 years. People do not live in communities anymore. There's no close family around to support or step in when needed. Your mum not two doors down anymore, she just can't pop round and five minutes.

Government policy these days is if a parent leaves the family unit that person pays child support. I've never seen this work out yet. When I think about my own sister after her husband left after 10 years, he never had to pay it once. He worked self-employed as a photographer and claimed that he never made enough and the government let him get away with it. It's still annoys me to this day.

So now we're in a situation where the government is expected to subsidize childcare places if we want parents that continue working. The ever-increasing cost of child care is putting most people off returning to work. Taxpayers are expected to step in and cover the costs of a family breakdown. It's the nanny state !!!

Society is expected to cover the costs of people's aspirations. There's no evidence to say the children from families with working mothers do better at school. It's the opposite. There was a big conversation back in the 80s about latch key kids going off the rails and getting into trouble. Today we have gangs of children terrorizing neighborhoods under the age of 14. So it looks like the people who said mothers working full time was a bad idea back in the 80s were right. Children without full-time supervision only get into trouble.

Who's the blame for all of this?

I blame the parents who don't want to live close to their own families.

I blame the grandparents there were too busy with their own lives to care about their own grandchildren.

I blame a liberal state that sold a dream that you can have a career and family has a woman.

it's about time we got back to basics and doing what worked for our grandparents parents generation.

Not only does the state have to provide healthcare and education, now they're expected to look after children too so parents can get on with their own lives. Unless you're earning over 8 thousand each month the state loses out. You will never pay enough tax to justify the cost and expense. It means the rest of us are paying for your lifestyle and choices.

Parents can't complain about poor healthcare or schools in the UK because they're taking all the money out the system. No parent right now can claim they're paying their fair share of the tax burden. The few hundred pounds they pay each month doesn't even come close to what they're taking out.

Instead now we have a generation who are demanding thousands of pounds in handouts from the taxpayer for child care and if we don't do it they won't work. You can only call that blackmail. We now have a generation who believe that if they cry and argue enough they will get what they want, this needs to end

Well my answer to this is simple. I won't be blackmailed into backing any legislation that increases child care support costs. Stay home with your kids it's cheaper for me as a tax payer. Live within your means like your grandparents did !!

I cant think of anything worse than a spoiled child other than a spoiled adult.
 
Last edited:

liam222

UKChat Expert
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
89
Reaction score
15
A lot of the women where I work will do 20 hours and get their benefits, but they'll spend most of their wages on childcare, I don't see the logic in it at all
 

Confused_Fred

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 14, 2024
Messages
338
Reaction score
68
I can Liam. 20 per week at £12 per hour is £240. They wont pay any tax on that.
The UC will pay there rent and top it up to £1800-£2000 in there pocket if they have 2 kids.
I had one come in to CAB once who was receiving 32k per year in welfare payments She worked part time and had 3 kids.
 

liam222

UKChat Expert
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
89
Reaction score
15
I can Liam. 20 per week at £12 per hour is £240. They wont pay any tax on that.
The UC will pay there rent and top it up to £1800-£2000 in there pocket if they have 2 kids.
I had one come in to CAB once who was receiving 32k per year in welfare payments She worked part time and had 3 kids.
Ridiculous really how they can manipulate the system, I can understand why they'd do it, but it is disgraceful, how some people have to work and others dont
 

Confused_Fred

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 14, 2024
Messages
338
Reaction score
68
I heard about a man on BBC radio called Ahmed Alhashimi. He put this 7 year old daughter in to boat at Calais and she was killed last weekend trying to make it to the UK.

After being refused refugee status in other country's within the EU for years. He deicide to put his wife and 3 kids into a boat at Calais knowing full well the it would take years to remove them from the UK. In the mean time our welfare system would supported them.

Minimal wages (monthly and hourly)As of the latest available information, the minimum wage in Iraq is approximately 250,000 Iraqi dinars per month, which equates to roughly $170 USD based on current exchange rates.

This family were going to make 30 times what they could have earn working in there home country just on welfare.

The one thing we all seem to forget is while people are waiting for the Home office to make up there minds, people save enough to buy a house in their of country of origin just from welfare.

A few years ago the UK did try a voucher scheme to stop this and deter people from coming here for this reason. It was soon stopped by the liberals who decided it was inhumane violated their human rights.

I'd love to say it's just a refugees but European Union nationals are doing same. Millions are being paid to support families in Poland to Hungry from the UK welfare system.


















 

ladymuck

UKChat Expert
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
141
Reaction score
110
In the past, a husband was responsible for supporting his wife and children. If his wife had to work, this was something to be ashamed of. Women often did seasonal work or part-time just to give them a bit of pocket money.
The question is...'do mothers work because they have to or because they need to?' What effect does it have on the children?
When I married, my husband and I agreed that I would stay at home and look after the family. I don't see the point of having a baby and then giving it to someone else to bring up.
If it was up to me, the whole thing would be means tested and free child-care only given to those who really needed to work.
 

Confused_Fred

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 14, 2024
Messages
338
Reaction score
68
Its all change now.

If you pay for childcare while you work, Universal Credit can pay up to 85% of monthly childcare costs up to a defined maximum amount.

1 child £1,014.63 per month
2 or more children £1,739.37 per month

If you have children​

You could get an extra amount for your children if they live with you. You would get the extra amount until the 31 August after their:

For your first child
£333.33 (born before 6 April 2017)
£287.92 (born on or after 6 April 2017)
For your second child and any other eligible children £287.92 per child.


The full amount of the new State Pension is £221.20 per week.
 

Moriarty

UKChat Celebrity
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
774
In the past, a husband was responsible for supporting his wife and children. If his wife had to work, this was something to be ashamed of. Women often did seasonal work or part-time just to give them a bit of pocket money.
The question is...'do mothers work because they have to or because they need to?' What effect does it have on the children?
When I married, my husband and I agreed that I would stay at home and look after the family. I don't see the point of having a baby and then giving it to someone else to bring up.
If it was up to me, the whole thing would be means tested and free child-care only given to those who really needed to work.
It's so silly.
Bring back manufacturing to the UK.
Drop all corporation tax.
That brings in investors which allows growth, which allows them to grow and employ more people, then more people pay taxes rather than take off the state.

It's a win - win.

There has always been an answer to national debt, simply charge banks 0.001 % on every business transaction.
That would create billions per year for government.

They wont do it though.
They would keep the little guy down.
 
Back
Top