Parents will be able to claim back up to £1,2k a yr. (2015)

[davieG]

Parents will be able to claim back up to £1,200 a year - or 20% of childcare costs - from 2015, under plans set to be unveiled by the government.

Parents will be allowed to claim back 20% out of a total of around £6,000 - what they believe to be the average annual price of a childcare place.

It will apply to all parents in England and Wales earning up to £150,000.

BBC Newsnight has learned ministers will invest a total of £1.4bn in the new childcare support arrangements.

Half the funding will come from the abolition of the previous system of government childcare vouchers, and in part by funding switched from elsewhere in Whitehall.

This new policy will also only be available to those parents who both work - where one parent does not work, they will not receive support - said to be underlining the government's support for making work pay.

Sources across Whitehall were said to be "jubilant" a deal had been struck, with one telling BBC Newsnight the four month negotiations had been a "monumental battle".

Britain has some of the highest childcare costs in the world, with many people with two or more children saying it did not make financial sense for both parents to work.

In a recent report the Daycare Trust found childcare costs were "rising at significantly above the rate of inflation in England".

The pledge to help working families with childcare costs was announced by Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in their Mid-Term Review in January.

But it has taken months of negotiations to pin down the details of the package, which will be announced the day before the Budget.

The government has already announced changes to allow nurseries and childminders in England to look after more children, which it says will make more childcare places available and reduce costs for parents in the "long term".

[Jace]

Looks like higher rate tax payers that use the existing childcare vouchers will miss out then, at least the help will be more accessible for people who do not have the vouchers available from their work. Will still imagine there will be similar help through Universal Credits for lower earners like the existing 70% help through Tax Credits entitlement

[Bayfox]

Good off them.

To introduce it the year my kids start school.

[cambridgefox]

Good off them.

To introduce it the year my kids start school.

I use childcare vouchers for the childminder in the mornings to take one child to school and sometimes after,although I'm not that worried about claiming,I think it's a fantastic idea for once.Childcare is expensive and has discouraged mum/dad to go back to work as it wasn't worth it financially .Lets hope this helps,albeit a little.

[Bettsj2]

Positive stuff. I completely disagree with raising the numbers care providers can accomodate though. That will naturally diminish the care given or no real reason that I can see?

[Captain...]

Could see a boom in child carers too, trying hard to see a downside in this but it actually looks like a good idea, it's only taken them 3years to come up with one, and they'll probably fvck it up in the implementation.

[Bayfox]

I use childcare vouchers for the childminder in the mornings to take one child to school and sometimes after,although I'm not that worried about claiming,I think it's a fantastic idea for once.Childcare is expensive and has discouraged mum/dad to go back to work as it wasn't worth it financially .Lets hope this helps,albeit a little.

I would have no problem claiming. But as i run my own business i have looked into it and unless i have at least 5 employees needing the childcare vouchers it isnt viable to my company.

My wife claims from the council she works at but we still have to pay over 600 a month out our pockets for our 2 kids to go to the local nursery.

[Jon the Hat]

Thinking about this a bit more, this effectively penalises parents who want to stay at home and raise their children. Not sure this is really a good thing.

[MooseBreath]

Childcare seems like a bit of a racquet to me. I reckon if I have a child i'll send Mrs moose out to work evenings and weekends so we can rotate baby duty and save the six grand a year. That would probably be difficult for those who have married one of those lesbian feminist career women, but you should have thought of that before you knocked her up.

In other news, why not just remove the subsidy altogether and reduce tax accordingly. That would be fairer on people who don't have children while also preventing an unnecessary and expensive admin merry go round.

[Zingari]

You do make me laugh Moosey

[Captain...]

Thinking about this a bit more, this effectively penalises parents who want to stay at home and raise their children. Not sure this is really a good thing.

How? Are they going to be worse off now than before?

Just because one group gets an advantage, doesn't mean all other groups are penalised, otherwise benefits are penalising those with jobs, Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are penalising those with food and somewhere to live.

What they are trying to do is make it viable and easier for both parents to work, rather than childcare being prohibitively expensive, making living off benefits and not working the better option, this already exists, but in a more complex and less inclusive form.

The Government actually do something worthwhile and they get criticised from their own supporters.

[MooseBreath]

They call it opportunity cost don't they

[Jon the Hat]

How? Are they going to be worse off now than before?

Just because one group gets an advantage, doesn't mean all other groups are penalised, otherwise benefits are penalising those with jobs, Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are penalising those with food and somewhere to live.

What they are trying to do is make it viable and easier for both parents to work, rather than childcare being prohibitively expensive, making living off benefits and not working the better option, this already exists, but in a more complex and less inclusive form.

The Government actually do something worthwhile and they get criticised from their own supporters.

Yes the are going to be worse off than before. There is currently a Childcare voucher system which is open to families with one working parent, and that will be abolished and replaced by this system which is only open to families where both parents work. This will cost single earner households £600-£1200 a year depending on whether they pay higher rate tax or not. To extend this, that means that a single earner household earning more than £70k a year will be worse of by £2,300 if they have one child, or over £3,000 if they have two children if you also take into account withdrawal of Child Benefit.

So in summary, those of us who choose to have a parent at home looking after the kids, and are lucky enough to be able to live on one income, are being ****ed over, again, by the tax system, while those families with the same Gross earnings are much much better off about £8,200 a year by my reckoning. ****ing outrageous.

[ADK]

I'd rather we just cut back on child related benefits and encouraged people to only have children if they could afford them.

[Jon the Hat]

I'd rather we just cut back on child related benefits and encouraged people to only have children if they could afford them.

That is in fact a very short sighted view point. Who will work to pay for essential services when we all get old?

[ADK]

That is in fact a very short sighted view point. Who will work to pay for essential services when we all get old?

We can't go on growing the size of the population either nationally or worldwide, neither is it sensible to encourage the lowest economic classes to have multiple children. Personally I think there should be universal child benefit available for the first 2 children.

[davieG]

Night nurseries: Sweden's round-the-clock childcare

As working parents around the world juggle their childcare issues, are Sweden's night nurseries the solution to unsociable hours?

Sweden has long had a glowing reputation for its generous childcare facilities and is regularly ranked as one of the best places to raise a family.

Each child is guaranteed a place at a public preschool and no parent is charged more than three per cent of their salary, with fees capped at SEK 1260 ($197, £132) a month for the country's highest earners.

All other costs are covered by the state, which spends SEK 56.6bn ($8.9bn, £5.0bn) a year subsidising preschool services, more than its annual defence budget.

Most public nurseries offer care from around 06:00 to 18:00. But with the numbers of parents working flexible or unconventional hours going up, local councils are increasingly providing more overnight and weekend services.

More - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21784716

[Bayfox]

In fairness tho. The current system is shit as the vouchers are just a tax perk. It comes out of my wifes wages. But saves 40 quid a month in tax. Not exactly a brilliant perk.

[Captain...]

Yes the are going to be worse off than before. There is currently a Childcare voucher system which is open to families with one working parent, and that will be abolished and replaced by this system which is only open to families where both parents work. This will cost single earner households £600-£1200 a year depending on whether they pay higher rate tax or not. To extend this, that means that a single earner household earning more than £70k a year will be worse of by £2,300 if they have one child, or over £3,000 if they have two children if you also take into account withdrawal of Child Benefit.

So in summary, those of us who choose to have a parent at home looking after the kids, and are lucky enough to be able to live on one income, are being ****ed over, again, by the tax system, while those families with the same Gross earnings are much much better off about £8,200 a year by my reckoning. ****ing outrageous.

Fair enough I didn't realise that.

So you are a tory complaining about the cutting of benefits of those that don't work?

Or do you think that those that don't need childcare should get childcare benefit?

[Jon the Hat]

Fair enough I didn't realise that.

So you are a tory complaining about the cutting of benefits of those that don't work?

Or do you think that those that don't need childcare should get childcare benefit?

I am complaining about the inequality between households with the same income. Anyway, generally supporting Childcare is great, I just dont understand why you would make it apply only where both parents work. I wonder what happens to single working parents in this.

[Jon the Hat]

We can't go on growing the size of the population either nationally or worldwide, neither is it sensible to encourage the lowest economic classes to have multiple children. Personally I think there should be universal child benefit available for the first 2 children.

You do know the population of the UK is decreasing excluding immigration don't you? Tell me, what happens in 100 years time if every two people have 1 child.

[Charl91]

You do know the population of the UK is decreasing excluding immigration don't you? Tell me, what happens in 100 years time if every two people have 1 child.

Even so, the population of the UK (and in the world in general) is still ridiculously too big - if it is decreasing, that's encouraging. If in 100 years, everyone only had 1 child for 2 people, that would probably be a good thing.

There's only so many people our planet can sustain.

[Captain...]

I am complaining about the inequality between households with the same income. Anyway, generally supporting Childcare is great, I just dont understand why you would make it apply only where both parents work. I wonder what happens to single working parents in this.

Why would a family* with only one parent working need childcare support?

2 households on the same income, one from 1 working parent the other from 2 working parents, with 2 working parents you need childcare, presumably, unless you get free childcare from the family, in which case you won't have anything to claim back, so despite having the same income your costs are driven up if this makes it not worth the second parent having a job, then it will lead to more unemployment and living off benefits.

1 working parent household shouldn't need childcare as I assume the other parent will be looking after the child, if they feel the costs of having a child is too great and they need/want more money, then the other parent can get a job, and get greatly reduced childcare costs, and stop having benefits.

I do hope that this legislation does take into account single parent families, families where one parent is unable to work or care for the child due to disability or other reasons, divorced couples, but with this government's track record of going into detail on this kind of legislation, I doubt it, I also hope it does look into why the costs of childcare is so high, and has considered tax breaks or subsidies for childcare, but this would be a universal benefit and not just a benefit for those that want to work, which is really what this should be about, we need to get away from government hand-outs being used as a disincentive to work.

*Standard nuclear family with 2 fit and healthy parents that are still together.

[FoxyPV]

I am complaining about the inequality between households with the same income. Anyway, generally supporting Childcare is great, I just dont understand why you would make it apply only where both parents work. I wonder what happens to single working parents in this.

Single working parents are shafted as well.

Why would a family* with only one parent working need childcare support?

2 households on the same income, one from 1 working parent the other from 2 working parents, with 2 working parents you need childcare, presumably, unless you get free childcare from the family, in which case you won't have anything to claim back, so despite having the same income your costs are driven up if this makes it not worth the second parent having a job, then it will lead to more unemployment and living off benefits.

1 working parent household shouldn't need childcare as I assume the other parent will be looking after the child, if they feel the costs of having a child is too great and they need/want more money, then the other parent can get a job, and get greatly reduced childcare costs, and stop having benefits.

I do hope that this legislation does take into account single parent families, families where one parent is unable to work or care for the child due to disability or other reasons, divorced couples, but with this government's track record of going into detail on this kind of legislation, I doubt it, I also hope it does look into why the costs of childcare is so high, and has considered tax breaks or subsidies for childcare, but this would be a universal benefit and not just a benefit for those that want to work, which is really what this should be about, we need to get away from government hand-outs being used as a disincentive to work.

*Standard nuclear family with 2 fit and healthy parents that are still together.

To give the one at home a couple of hours break every couple of days. A stay at home parent's work doesn't finish until the child goes to sleep so it's not like going to work. It never ends. Stay at home parents who don't work at all will sometimes have a part time place in a nursery for socialisation purposes, to get the child prepared for nursery / school and for a rest.

[Captain...]

Single working parents are shafted as well.

Not surprised about that, they seem incapable of thinking any policy through.

To give the one at home a couple of hours break every couple of days. A stay at home parent's work doesn't finish until the child goes to sleep so it's not like going to work. It never ends. Stay at home parents who don't work at all will sometimes have a part time place in a nursery for socialisation purposes, to get the child prepared for nursery / school and for a rest.

That is their choice, I don't think the government should fund socialisation.