Nursery costs soar
Discussion
"the Daycare Trust calculates that parents in the UK still have to pay about 75% of their total childcare costs, compared to a European average of 30%"
And what help there is is heavily means tested. No wonder working people are waiting so long before having children.
And what help there is is heavily means tested. No wonder working people are waiting so long before having children.
BBC said:
Nursery costs soar, charity says
Full-time nursery places are highest in London
The average cost of a full-time nursery place in Britain has reached £7,400 a year, according to the Daycare Trust.
The typical charge for a full-time place for a child aged under two is now £142 a week, its research suggests.
The trust says childcare costs have risen significantly above inflation in the last year, with Scotland up by 8% and Wales up by 7%.
The cost of a full-time place in England has risen 27% since 2000, it adds. Charges are highest in London.
However, the cost in the capital rose hardly at all in 2005.
Beth Reid, from the Childcare Trust, said rising charges across the country were partly due to rising labour costs.
"The minimum wage has been rising and many childcare staff are on the minimum wage," she said.
"Also, the cost of premises is expensive - especially in London and the South East."
Expensive child minders
Inner London is still the most expensive place in the country when it comes to nursery care.
The average charge for a nursery place for a young child is currently £197 a week, while in outer London the typical cost is £174 a week.
But some parents are paying much more, particularly for child minders.
The trust's research reveals that for the first time the most expensive childminders cost even more than nurseries, with some childminders in London and the South East charging £500 a week per child.
Even for central London, however, the figure is untypical.
The average cost there is a more affordable £163 a week, ahead of the average for Great Britain of £130 a week.
Looking back over the last five years, the trust says childcare costs have far outstripped the general rise in inflation.
The main state support for childcare falls into three categories:
Free nursery or reception class places for all three and four year olds - for two and a half days a week, spread over five days each week, during term time
The child care element of the working tax credit - means tested but for some parents may pay up to 70% of child care costs such as paying nurseries or child minders
Child care vouchers - introduced in 2005, working parents can take a voucher from an employer in lieu of £50 a week in pay, in exchange for saving up to £800 a year in tax and National Insurance contributions
Despite the new government policies introduced in the last few years, the Daycare Trust calculates that parents in the UK still have to pay about 75% of their total childcare costs, compared to a European average of 30%.
I think that these charges are appalling. And people wonder why many single mothers do not work. My friend had a great job - she lives in Surrey - but found that she would be spending her entire income on nursery fees. It seems to me that only real high earners are in a situation where they can afford these fees.
Yes, the whole system is totally unfair and divisive. Only the very well off can afford it, or the poor - who get it for free. For the vast majority of those in between - exactly the kind of people that society needs to have children - the costs are prohibitive.
How many middle class, educated couples have more than two kids? Very few, and this is one of the primary reasons. How many uneducated, non-working or very low income families have more than two children? Many, many more. And once again, this is the reason.
It's not dfficult, so why politicians have always failed to get to grips with this is beyond me.
How many middle class, educated couples have more than two kids? Very few, and this is one of the primary reasons. How many uneducated, non-working or very low income families have more than two children? Many, many more. And once again, this is the reason.
It's not dfficult, so why politicians have always failed to get to grips with this is beyond me.
Jaglover said:
It will be expensive, and most politicians are short-termist.
Of course you are right and sadly I know that to be the reason. However, it is not necessarily the most difficult issue to tackle and would be very popular with the voting classes. The key is to disincentivise the welfare claimers to have children by introducing a reducing scale of support, and divert the recovered finds to providing proper childcare subsidy for those who have fewer children and pay more tax.
Of course the big hurdle to get over would be the human rights idiots who seem to think it is every woman's right to bear as many kids as she likes regardless of whether she and her partner (if one is around) can actually support them.
My wife and I own a creche for 20 children and have just had to put up the prices from £3 to £3.50 per hour after being open two years. We have held back the increase for as long as possible but everyone knows how this government likes to squeeze small business owners by the balls and the amount of employee tax and council tax we have to pay is astounding as are running costs to keep OFSTED happy.
shadowninja said:
And yet someone who works in a nursery gets paid peanuts...
This is true and I think it is mainly due to childcare being too cheap! Parents want the best care ie someone with all of the relevant experience and qualifications but still want to pay bottom dollar.
Most people don't mind paying £80 an hour to get their car looked after
where do i start with the opinions above.
my knowledge of the subject is by no means encyclopedic, but i have the inside track on this issue insofar as my sister owns the largest child daycare company in the West Midlands.
firstly, you can't have it both ways, new parents are particularly picky and neurotic about how their babies are looked after, and rightly so, but the net result is that OFSTED have got the jackboots out and declared a staffing ratio of 3-1 for babies, so for every 3 kids, there is one fully qualified member of staff, and believe me, they are not on minimum wage, not big earners by any stretch, but about £9-12k pa. so parents need to pay .33 of that wage for a start, and that is before rent, rates, bills, food, management staff, training blah blah blah. how much would you like to pay for that????? that is without the generous allowances the inland revenue and all sorts of other govt agencies provide, most "normal" parents with "normal jobs" only have to find about £30 per week out of their own pocket once everything is taken into account.
why do people expect things to be given to them on a plate??? it just really pisses me off to hear snidey comments aimed at people who are just trying to run a business under the ever watchful eye of big brother.
if people think that they can do any better, they want to try themselves, the bills are scary..........
my knowledge of the subject is by no means encyclopedic, but i have the inside track on this issue insofar as my sister owns the largest child daycare company in the West Midlands.
firstly, you can't have it both ways, new parents are particularly picky and neurotic about how their babies are looked after, and rightly so, but the net result is that OFSTED have got the jackboots out and declared a staffing ratio of 3-1 for babies, so for every 3 kids, there is one fully qualified member of staff, and believe me, they are not on minimum wage, not big earners by any stretch, but about £9-12k pa. so parents need to pay .33 of that wage for a start, and that is before rent, rates, bills, food, management staff, training blah blah blah. how much would you like to pay for that????? that is without the generous allowances the inland revenue and all sorts of other govt agencies provide, most "normal" parents with "normal jobs" only have to find about £30 per week out of their own pocket once everything is taken into account.
why do people expect things to be given to them on a plate??? it just really pisses me off to hear snidey comments aimed at people who are just trying to run a business under the ever watchful eye of big brother.
if people think that they can do any better, they want to try themselves, the bills are scary..........
EmmaP said:
I think that these charges are appalling. And people wonder why many single mothers do not work. My friend had a great job - she lives in Surrey - but found that she would be spending her entire income on nursery fees. It seems to me that only real high earners are in a situation where they can afford these fees.
A relation of ours is a single mother and has a job at the Hospital and TBH is laughing all the way to the bank.
greg_D said:
OFSTED ... declared a staffing ratio of 3-1 for babies, so for every 3 kids, there is one fully qualified member of staff ... about £9-12k pa. so parents need to pay .33 of that wage for a start, and that is before rent, rates, bills, food, management staff, training blah blah blah.
Its basically a simple equation. Also, there is the issue to consider (as a parent) whether you would want somebody who's willing to work for less than £9k a year looking after your baby? greg_D said:
but the net result is that OFSTED have got the jackboots out and declared a staffing ratio of 3-1 for babies, so for every 3 kids, there is one fully qualified member of staff, and believe me, they are not on minimum wage, not big earners by any stretch, but about £9-12k pa. so parents need to pay .33 of that wage for a start, and that is before rent, rates, bills, food, management staff, training blah blah blah. how much would you like to pay for that?????
Shocking, seems a ludicrous staff ratio to me.
greg_D said:
that is without the generous allowances the inland revenue and all sorts of other govt agencies provide, most "normal" parents with "normal jobs" only have to find about £30 per week out of their own pocket once everything is taken into account.
define 'normal'
Jaglover said:
but the net result is that OFSTED have got the jackboots out and declared a staffing ratio of 3-1 for babies, so for every 3 kids, there is one fully qualified member of staff, and believe me, they are not on minimum wage, not big earners by any stretch, but about £9-12k pa. so parents need to pay .33 of that wage for a start, and that is before rent, rates, bills, food, management staff, training blah blah blah. how much would you like to pay for that?????
Shocking, seems a ludicrous staff ratio to me.
greg_D said:
that is without the generous allowances the inland revenue and all sorts of other govt agencies provide, most "normal" parents with "normal jobs" only have to find about £30 per week out of their own pocket once everything is taken into account.
define 'normal'
normal round here is 2 parents both earning around £15-20k
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff