Parents - changes coming to government childcare contributions

ci_newman · 29 Mar 2017 at 15:37

Participant said:
^ Ok.

I'm sure that's what they're doing . This gets complicated quickly...

Does anyone know, when it says 'You can’t use Tax-Free Childcare at the same time as childcare vouchers', does that apply per household? So could my wife keep her childcare vouchers while I use tax-free childcare?

This would allow me up to £4k per child of contributions from UK gov vs. the max of £1,488 per annum that I can get in vouchers.

No, a household / family can only use one scheme or the other.

Freakbro · 29 Mar 2017 at 15:54

Participant said:
That's interesting; have the 3 others categorically stated that they won't be doing it, as the ones near me haven't committed yet pending more details of the scheme? My other question would be - do these nurseries currently offer the 15 hours and if so, will they continue to do so?

My childrens' nursery offers the 15 hours but hasn't yet committed to the 30 hours. At least I won't be any worse off than at present as a result of their eventual decision I guess.

2 have stated they won't be offering the 30 free hours, 1 hasn't made their minds up and 1 is offering the 30 hrs

They'll offer partial credit, I assume. E.g. if the nursery's charge for 30 hours is £200 but the government only reimburses £150, you'd only pay the nursery the net £50 as they'd get the rest from the tax payer, which is how it works for the 15 hours, at least for our nursery.

As the others have said, nurseries can't charge a top for the difference between their normal hourly rate and the funded rate. So for say 25 hours, you just get 15 free and then pay the normal hourly rate for the other 10

Well they could implement it, they just continue to accept numbers up to their potential capacity.

The problem is that reduces capacity in the area. for eg - a small preschool opens 9 - 3 and has 24 children doing 9-12 Mon-Fri and 24 doing 12 - 3 in the afternoon. If they offered 30 hrs they could only cater for 24 children in total now, so it ends up a reduction of 24 nursery places in the area.

That's an extreme example, but it is a problem a lot of Nurseries throughout the country are facing.

Participant · 29 Mar 2017 at 16:33

^ Gotcha.

Christ you need a doctorate to understand all of this. Either that or I'm a bit dim (no need to address that).

subbytna · 29 Mar 2017 at 16:39

I have twins, I'll be looking at this later. Ta.

Freakbro · 29 Mar 2017 at 16:57

theone8181 said:
Bare in mind, at the nursery my daughter goes to they divide the current 15 hours up into 3 hour chunks (3 hours/morning, 3 for the afternoon) so you still pay for their 'wrap around' care. Not sure if the 30 hours will end up being 6 hours per day or if it can be used in one go. But obviously anything that reduces childcare cost is good for me.

There is a lot of flexibility with how the 30 hours can be applied, up to a maximum of 10 hrs per day iirc

Also, if the nursery does the stretched offer you don't have to have 30 hrs over 38 weeks, but say 24 hours over 47.5 weeks or pretty much any combination the nursery wants to offer.

theone8181 · 29 Mar 2017 at 18:26

I'd rather be paying a bit more each month so that every month is the same but not sure if they do it that way.

Energize · 29 Mar 2017 at 21:35

Ah another complicated government scheme to pay for others lifestyle choices, just what we need in the current economic climate...

Participant · 30 Mar 2017 at 05:07

Energize said:
Ah another complicated government scheme to pay for others lifestyle choices, just what we need in the current economic climate...

So we should abolish free state schools? They're also paid for by tax payers with no kids.

And tax payers with kids fund the lifestyle choices of smokers, drinkers, and diabetics with no kids, etc. etc.

It's not a very intelligent argument really and leads down a path of tit for tat debate ad infinitum.

Energize · 30 Mar 2017 at 10:39

Participant said:
So we should abolish free state schools? They're also paid for by tax payers with no kids.

And tax payers with kids fund the lifestyle choices of smokers, drinkers, and diabetics with no kids, etc. etc.

It's not a very intelligent argument really and leads down a path of tit for tat debate ad infinitum.

Yes, state schools should go, they are pretty terrible in performance and result in kids being indoctrinated with government initiatives such as anti-drugs etc. Not that it even falls into the same category as this scheme.

Just because you are a fan of misguided socialism doesn't make an argument against robbing the poor to pay for the rich an unintelligent argument...

Participant · 30 Mar 2017 at 10:43

Energize said:
Yes, state schools should go, they are pretty terrible in performance and result in kids being indoctrinated with government initiatives such as anti-drugs etc. Not that it even falls into the same category as this scheme.

Just because you are a fan of misguided socialism doesn't make an argument against robbing the poor to pay for the rich an unintelligent argument...

You didn't answer my question. 'State schools should go' hasn't addressed the funding mechanism of schools, just whether they should stay or not. Read harder.

Energize · 30 Mar 2017 at 10:48

Sorry, I'll write you a comprehensive essay and work on my mind reading skills so I can read between the lines in future.

Participant · 30 Mar 2017 at 10:52

Energize said:
Sorry, I'll write you a comprehensive essay and work on my mind reading skills so I can read between the lines in future.

Fair enough. 'So we should abolish free state schools?' was a pretty ambiguous and complex question in hindsight. I can see how this convoluted and confusing string of words might have led you to entirely ignore how schools should be funded.

We should privatise the entire school (and childcare funding) system and let the markets sort it out, otherwise we're just dirty commies really.

Energize · 30 Mar 2017 at 18:23

Participant said:
'So we should abolish free state schools?'

I answered that question in the affirmative. Have you gone out of your way to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote?

Participant · 30 Mar 2017 at 19:22

Energize said:
I answered that question in the affirmative. Have you gone out of your way to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote?

You still haven't said how they should instead be funded.

SpeedFreak · 30 Mar 2017 at 21:27

Energize said:
Ah another complicated government scheme to pay for others lifestyle choices, just what we need in the current economic climate...

Many thanks for contributing towards the system that funds my three children in school and nursery, I do appreciate it.

LOAM · 31 Mar 2017 at 16:43

Energize said:
Ah another complicated government scheme to pay for others lifestyle choices, just what we need in the current economic climate...

SpeedFreak said:
Many thanks for contributing towards the system that funds my three children in school and nursery, I do appreciate it.

Same here, many thanks Energize for sponsoring my child (Evie sends hugs). If you could perhaps work a little harder though

Basher · 31 Mar 2017 at 17:00

Very useful links, thank you. Looking at the calculator:

If you and your partner can both get vouchers, you could get up to:

£1,558 a year

Doesn't look like we're eligible for tax-free childcare.

When he's a bit older, we'll get the 15 hours free child-care too.

Droolinggimp · 31 Mar 2017 at 20:10

I started reading this thread yesterday and my mind was like, messed up. It seemed so confusing. Anyway my wife logged into our online portal thing and noticed a payment to be made that was triple what we normally get. She called them up and to our surprise we are getting £192 every 4 weeks now as apposed to our £60ish every 4 weeks. The person on the phone asked if our child was in care at all and she said yes and told how much and the nice person said, "i'll pay that for you" so we now get our child care taken care of and a bit extra too boot. It will go up next year too as now both of us are on less than this time last year. Win win all round.

leaskovski · 31 Mar 2017 at 21:31

What I don't understand here is, that the child care provider needs to sign up to the scheme. This is my issue. At the moment, our eldest has turned 3 and the 15 free hours (which is only applicable to certain hours of the day) is due to kick in at the change of term time (April). Now the provider is at the moment, trying to figure out if they should move to the new number of hours or not. At this point, my child is settled and has established a good friend base, so pulling her out of that proivder to another, is a no go.

Headline token policy.

leaskovski · 31 Mar 2017 at 21:53

Participant said:
I used the detailed online illustrator at https://www.gov.uk/childcare-calculator and it reckoned I'd save ~£500 per year by using tax-free childcare rather than childcare vouchers, I guess because I'm a higher rate tax payer and childcare vouchers are limited to £124 per month for me (£243 for my wife, who's a basic rate tax payer).

Thats about the same here, and the same amount of vouchers that the mrs and I save. I don't understand how they calculate the figures, as the mrs puts 243 away and I 124, so that comes to 4404 each year that we save in child vouchers. The new scheme, you can only get 2000 per child, so thats 4k in total, yet we save more than that in vouchers that we get back, so not sure how it came back with...

Tax-Free Childcare
£2,294 a year

Childcare vouchers
£1,558 a year