Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Child care cost

By Inforequest - 21 January 2014 10

How much are people willing to pay for child care spots in Canberra?

Prices seem to be $105 – $112 per day in a central location… as to the quality… well… that seems debatable according to all the research I have been doing.

$120 – $165 a day in Sydney and waitlists do not exist in a lot of places, just like here, centres won’t even put you on one….

so what would you pay  for a spot?

Tags

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
10 Responses to
Child care cost
Madam Cholet 8:25 am 22 Jan 14

vet111 said :

Madam Cholet said :

Master Cholet starts Kindy this year. No one could be more pleased than I at the fact that we have gone from spending 20k a year (with $7500 rebated) to $50 a week for two days of before and after care – and various permutations of child care along the way.

Couple costs with the shortage of places and the inflexibility of some workplaces around part time work and job shares and you have a crisis. One that is not remedied with paid mat leave alone. Amazing how the government is not throwing every resource they have at improving the situation.

Or – here’s a crazy idea….

Children are a lifestyle choice. If you can’t afford to care for them, don’t have them. Don’t expect the rest of us poor bastards to pay for your choice.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against children or parents. I would dearly love to see the government do something similar to apprenticeships where businesses are given financial incentives to employ parents and carers part time or during school hours. What I do object to is things like the family tax benefit, baby bonus, school kids bonus and the like. It’s inequitable, and middle class welfare.

Before anyone passes the comment – I’m realistic enough to realize that by the time I reach retirement age, there will be no such thing as an aged pension. I will be expected to have saved enough super and worked for long enough that I have to look after myself. And that’s ok with me.

Limited welfare for children and parents is fine, provided it is targeted to those who need it. But perhaps parents need to realize that having children means you can no longer afford the fancy things you used to have, and its you who needs to look at how you’re spending, not how much more you can squeeze from the government.

Sorry madam, this is not targeted at you – I just happened to cherry pick that last comment of yours so I could get on my soapbox.

No offence taken, but yes it’s a crazy idea. Wipe out rebates and you will automatically have many more people staying at home and thus claiming other types of family benefits. Was just thinking about this last night….the fact that school holidays are mightily expensive and that if I was a stay at home parent I would not be able to afford to take my son here there and everywhere. Because I work 30 hours a week and because I save my holidays for this purpose these days, I am able to indulge little tarquin as he deserves.

In my lifetime I have claimed very little from the government. 4 and a bit years of childcare tax rebate (after stumping up the money in advance), and at the age of 41, having produced another useful human being who at some stage will also be out there being productive, I have decided to go back to education and make use of the government loan system. Having not hailed from this country, I consider I have used very little, but have contributed since almost the day I set foot on the soil. To get the childcare tax rebate I have worked and contributed to the taxation system and put money into the economy. I haven’t just put my hand out. We even saved up and funded my mat leave because we had no choice. You do what you have to but also use the help you are offered.

People always make these statements in isolation. Would you knock back something that helped you stay in the workforce when you most needed it? And what about your parents, brothers or sisters? Have they received any financial input at any stage?

What it seems like to me is that people without children through their own choice look over the fence at those with children and are jealous at ‘what we get’ as if it’s some kind of savings plan that we have managed to secure for ourselves. I can tell you that for most it’s not. We haven’t saved a cent since he came along. I’m not whinging about that because I couldn’t imagine life without him and if there were no rebates I still would have made the decision to have him. The lack of second child is though partly influenced by finances.

I hope that you never have to be in receipt of any kind of benefit. But hey, I won’t begrudge you it either.

sepi 7:30 am 22 Jan 14

Why quote anyone then? Mm cholet would not be getting FTB and schoolkids bonus and the like. Two parents employed in average jobs don’t get them. I don’t get any of that stuff – the annoying thing is everyone assume we do. the papers always quote a 150 000 cut off for all these ‘benefits’ but that is a crock. I think that is for a family where one parent works.and at that income their benefit would be 1.00.

The system is crap though. Many parents want to work part time. You can only get child care rebate for working about 3 days a week. For many on lowish incomes, or with 2 or 3 kids in childcare it is actually better to stay home full time and get the full range of FTB, FTA school kids bonus etc.

I actually agree that the threshold for FTB should be seriously cut back, but starting off with one on those rants about how women with kids shouldn’t work just means a lot of people never got to your real point.

wildturkeycanoe 7:14 am 22 Jan 14

vet111
“Or – here’s a crazy idea….
Children are a lifestyle choice. If you can’t afford to care for them, don’t have them. Don’t expect the rest of us poor bastards to pay for your choice.”

Children are not a “lifestyle choice”, they are the continuation of a species and a natural part of life. Making them out to be a desired commodity is just nasty.
Sure our society as a whole contributes to the upbringing of children, but we also pay for other things that are “luxuries” as you call them. Negative gearing investment properties for wealthy home owners, income tax to pay for unemployed, disabled and just plain lazy people, rates to pay for our politicians’ wages and so on. If you started searching where your tax money is going, you’d find a whole heap more wealth distribution to folks who simply don’t deserve it because of choices they made – drug addicts, prison inmates, government sponsored charities??
If we were to cut spending entirely on supporting parents to raise their kids, then public schools would become private schools and unaffordable for anyone except the high income earners. It’d be too expensive for anyone under a six figure salary to have kids and do you know what – pretty soon the poor people would die off and the rich folks’ offspring would have to get out of their dress suits, put on a pair of boots and gloves and go into the fields and do some hard work for a change.
If you believe that only the rich are allowed to have kids, then unfortunately in my book that is as good as genocide, by way of selective breeding. Aussie battlers are creating the next generation of hard working laborers, factory workers, retail assistants and generally everyone who keeps this country running. None of these people would happen under your ideals, so get off your high horse and have some consideration for parents who are doing it tough to make their and our lives better in the future.

vet111 9:41 pm 21 Jan 14

Madam Cholet said :

Master Cholet starts Kindy this year. No one could be more pleased than I at the fact that we have gone from spending 20k a year (with $7500 rebated) to $50 a week for two days of before and after care – and various permutations of child care along the way.

Couple costs with the shortage of places and the inflexibility of some workplaces around part time work and job shares and you have a crisis. One that is not remedied with paid mat leave alone. Amazing how the government is not throwing every resource they have at improving the situation.

Or – here’s a crazy idea….

Children are a lifestyle choice. If you can’t afford to care for them, don’t have them. Don’t expect the rest of us poor bastards to pay for your choice.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against children or parents. I would dearly love to see the government do something similar to apprenticeships where businesses are given financial incentives to employ parents and carers part time or during school hours. What I do object to is things like the family tax benefit, baby bonus, school kids bonus and the like. It’s inequitable, and middle class welfare.

Before anyone passes the comment – I’m realistic enough to realize that by the time I reach retirement age, there will be no such thing as an aged pension. I will be expected to have saved enough super and worked for long enough that I have to look after myself. And that’s ok with me.

Limited welfare for children and parents is fine, provided it is targeted to those who need it. But perhaps parents need to realize that having children means you can no longer afford the fancy things you used to have, and its you who needs to look at how you’re spending, not how much more you can squeeze from the government.

Sorry madam, this is not targeted at you – I just happened to cherry pick that last comment of yours so I could get on my soapbox.

A_Cog 4:53 pm 21 Jan 14

Up to the beginning of 2014, we were paying $95/day… but to a centre run by Southside Community Services (SSCS). We would not have kept the little one there for another year.

Lord of the Flies. And if you’re reading this SSCS: My heart soars at the thought of never dealing with you again.

melsa 3:47 pm 21 Jan 14

My Son’s childcare has just been increased to $108 per day. @Danman They more days we book him in for, the more of a discount we get. We ‘only’ pay $477.50 for the week, and he is in for 5 days – I guess that is how it becomes affordable for us. We would definitely be worse off if I wasn’t at work. Additionally, I like the centre and the carers (and so does he) so I don’t have a problem paying the fees.

We were incredibly lucky to find a spot at a centre we like, as after 16 months on a wait list (I was 20 weeks pregnant when we went on the wait lists for a number of centres).. Three weeks after I had started back at work, we got this spot by pure chance from a friends recommendation. Many of my Mum friends have accepted care at a centre that that wasn’t their first, second or even third preference (and more expensive!) due to them having no other choice.

Madam Cholet 3:37 pm 21 Jan 14

Master Cholet starts Kindy this year. No one could be more pleased than I at the fact that we have gone from spending 20k a year (with $7500 rebated) to $50 a week for two days of before and after care – and various permutations of child care along the way.

Couple costs with the shortage of places and the inflexibility of some workplaces around part time work and job shares and you have a crisis. One that is not remedied with paid mat leave alone. Amazing how the government is not throwing every resource they have at improving the situation.

Danman 1:08 pm 21 Jan 14

Currently have 2 children in care – $104 a child a day.

We only have them in Wed thru Fri with Mrs Danmans weekend Mon-Tue (shift/weekend worker)

The reality of that is $624 dollars a week, or $1248 a pay point.

We are still in reciept of the rebate, but as you can see, $7500pa runs its course in around 6 months which means you have to pay the remaining ~15,000 out of your own expenses.

Keep in mind that this is for 2 children, attending only 3 days a week. If you had 1 child 5 days a week, charges would be similar, if you had 2 children 5 days a week, I’d quit work.

As a result of this, Mrs Danman and I (Who collectively are on a very good wage for our age) are really only treading water financially – keeping on top of things, but not affording as many graces as we used to, or putting money away for rainy days – sure thats on account of having 2 extra bodies to look after, but the reality is that once Miss 4 hits school age, then Mr 2.5, we will be able to look after them just as well as we are now, but saving in the order of $32,000 a year on child care.

That, is a fair chunk.. I dont know how people can afford to have their kids in care fulltime.

Mothy 10:31 am 21 Jan 14

I’d struggle to rationalize anything over $100 a day.

With 2nd child entering care, that’d be $200 a day vs. partner’s after tax salary circa $235 a day, rendering the net $ amount marginal (though there’s the advantage of keeping their skills & experience current).

Yes, the Child Care Rebate covers 50% of out of pocket expenses – this allows for 50% of expenses to $7,500 per annum, so you can take three days a week at that rate receiving half back – moving up to five days a week, you’d start to receive less than 50% of the total spend in the year back. Effectively, this is enforced saving – you get the money back either quarterly or annually.

And all of that only holds while Abbott and the Audit Commission keep CCR at current levels, without means testing.

sepi 10:16 am 21 Jan 14

I think you could chard 150 a day and you would get desperate people taking up the spots. they would all leave as spots became available for them elsewhere. You should be quick though – if more childcare becomes available in Canberra people will desert the more expensive or less good centres.

But right now you could charge any amount and get people who have just moved to Canberra and need to go to work. The new centre in yarralumla was over 100 a day when all the others were around 80 and they were full, but they had very high turnover as people wen’t elsewhere as soon as they could.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site