Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

The childcare workers at my son's nursery are all ages (don't think I've seen a single man though, but its a big nursery so maybe in other classes), some I recognise from when my daughter was at nursery years ago, its a profession for life for them. One of the workers is also a local councilwoman, not going off to do other things but doing them along side her job which she clearly values. Its not a low-valued job in my country even though its pay isn't on the level with its value (they've been striking about that though so hopefully its going up)

No I'm not. I'm saying it's better to offer free childcare so women can work if they choose to. The child to adult ratio should be whatever is considered appropriate by the experts (not the government).

10 dollars a day is too low.

My DD's nursery charges fees based on household income. However it is run by a charity and crossed subsidized.

My DD's childcare workers are either women in their 50s or young people up to 25 - yes it does include men - who are clearly going off in a couple of years to do something else.

One of her former nursery workers is on a round the world trip.

And I suspect our CM will retire in a few years.

The proof is that investment in early years is huge. But only when it's done properly as EARLY YEARS EDUCATION. Definitely not when it's denigrated to 'childcare'. No bright and intelligent person of sane mind (basically the people that we need in EY education) wants to be a 'childcare worker'.

Surely it's economics at its most basic level?

Those of you up in arms about not paying for other peoples childcare - those children will be the ones in 30 years caring for you, being your DR, your nurse, your binmen, your shop assistants, your cleaners, your carers, they will be paying current taxes to pay for your old age healthcare, state pension, facilities - it's really very easy to understand.

I am 36, we pay childcare of £1250 a month for ds2 and then £500 a month for ds1 wraparound. This means one of our wages is entirely spent on childcare, meaning we can't put any money into holidays or savings or a bigger house or other local ecomony spends. I could leave work of course, and claim UC and be a drain on the taxation system.

I've been looking at the Canadian model (which has been proven to work) they are subsidising childcare so a nursery place costs a parent a maximum of $10 a day. The subsidy is more than paying for itself in other taxes, the number of parents who have returned to Full Time work - both lower and higher paid and so paying taxes. The reduction in benefit payouts because of people working more and not needing benefits, and local economy taxes such as VAT as people have more to spend in their local shops and on local businesses.

This just makes so much more logical sense, fund the care so people can return to work and pay taxes/reduce their claim for benefits and it pays for itself.

@Overthebow sadly this has always been the case. Those in the middle are squeezed the most. It's a disgrace really. The very wealthy seem to somehow manage to avoid tax, yet they are the ones who should be supporting the less well off. Instead it always falls to the middle. You end up so politically homeless!

It’s very heavily subsidised for low income families yes, but there’s little help for middle income families and it’s just not affordable. We have relatively high income at just over £90k and we can afford it but it is still a significant amount for us each month. If we wasn’t £30k less we wouldn’t be able to afford it. We’re in an expensive area so mortgages/rent is high. The middle income group is often forgotten about.

It’s already heavily subsidised for the lower paid through free hours and universal credit. I don’t feel like the taxpayer should pay for childcare for higher earners, but I also don’t think the taxpayer should pay for middle class kids to go to university. And I think middle class pensioners should pay for their own social care through a massive hike in inheritance tax, rather than the burden falling on general taxation.

I wish everyone understood this!

THIS! I wish that more people understood this!

The trouble with this is that the really amazing settings have to charge more because they cost more. A setting employing mostly graduates in a beautiful well planned environment SHOULD cost more than a village hall setting with a few level threes and unqualified staff. This is the issue with calling Early Childhood Education 'childcare' and one of the reasons good staff are leaving. So undervalued.

I think anything that's deemed 'free' somehow loses its value to the user. A lot of parents would be more invested in their child's school if they had to contribute something. Better for schools too who are really struggling. In France kids have to bring all books and stationary. Everything.

The trouble with this is that it's not funded properly so nurseries have to cross-subsidise by charging paying parents (usually those with under twos) a fortune. OR offering an eye-wateringly expensive lunch to 'make up' the missing money. If it was subsidised everyone would be a lot clearer as to what is available.

Yep!

Only problem with 'low cost childcare' is that it's not 'high quality Early Years education' which is what children need. The funding rate should be around 8.50 per hour based on the amount NMW has increased. Instead it's around £4.50 and the LA takes a slice for 'admin'. I think a subsidy is sensible. It would keep a wide range of choice for families (a village hall is cheaper to run than other types of settings). It would give access to more expensive settings to a wider group of people and it would not be a race to the bottom of settings trying to make ends meet for nurseries. Which inevitably impacts quality.

Why did your husband refuse to pay for his child to attend nursery?

Oh and it is very common in the UK for women to work for nothing after childcare costs. I had SILs who did so. However it allowed them to keep hold off and develop their careers.

But yes @LongStoryShorty thats exactly the problem with means tested or sliding scale systems.

I was just wondering how long the day that is costing £10?
Isn't that less than an hours work for a full days childcare?

Why didn't your husband pay as he was the high earner? They take into account the entire household income because the assumption is couples share their income, not keep them entirely separate, or at least share the bills so higher income pays higher proportion of bills.

But if 10 quid a day was the 'cheap' end of the fees then the fees weren't very subsidised where you lived so don't blame you for not wanting to pay and keeping your child home. 10 quid a day would be about the maximum fee where I am, the most I ever had to pay was around 150 euros a month for my DD but that was paid for me because nursery was deemed essential for her behaviour issues.

we lived and worked on a country with a sliding scale fees for nursery and as my husband is a high earner but I was working as a teacher I found it unfair as we would have had to pay the top fees which were more than my salary but my friend could put her kid in for £10 a day and did it just so she could do nothing. I ended up staying at home as it just didn’t make sense for me to work. Used to really annoy me watching her take her kid there and then tell me how she’s just watching TV at home. So I think a sliding scale should also take into account the woman’s salary as it’s usually her who would be giving up work.

At the very least it should be fully tax deductible. Enable parents to work by removing barriers to entering the workplace. As a single parent, I hate being a higher rate tax payer without any consideration for the increased costs I incur to be able to work.

I don’t think either party is suggesting free childcare though.

They use a sliding scale for fees in my country and it seems to work ok, its proportional so there shouldn't be anyone that is left behind, no one is paying too big a proportion of their income.
I think this whole discussion requires a country with a better government than the UK currently has, so yes its a bit pie in the sky but the idea is that taxes aren't spent on frivolous things or wasted in corrupt schemes but are spent appropriately in all the areas they are needed including properly funding the NHS etc.
In an ideal country taxes would properly fund childcare too, and that would help everyone because more people would be able to work and pay taxes helping fund it, less women would be stuck in bad/abusive/unhappy relationships because they can't afford to leave as they gave up working because they couldn't afford childcare, and more children would start school on an equal footing, ready to learn and thrive.
As to the last point, the council run nurseries in my country are run well, certainly better than some private ones which tend to get in the news for negative reasons, and everyone is guaranteed a spot somewhere, you don't have to worry about not finding a daycare place. The UK could do this too, if people stop voting in terrible governments.

I couldn't agree more with this. Very well said.