Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

Im not quite sure why you used my post, as you didnt really acknowledge any of the points in it.

Well, for a start I don't think it should be entirely free

Neither do I. The duscussion i was having lead from it being free paying for itself and improving our economy.

someone else said earlier, people don't value things that are completely free

I disagree with that. People who can not afford to eat, appreciate food being given to them, but what they really want is a fare crack of the whip to earn it themselves, not have 2 adults working full time and a government that still allow them to need food banks.

The fees should be proportional to income up to a reasonable maximum, that would then cost less than entirely free childcare but still make it affordable to all

But what is that amount? . Who makes that decision because in a means tested system there are always those who fall marginally below who are in the left behind.
How would you gauge that?

But the childcare providers have to be funded adequately, that means more tax money going towards childcare provision (doesn't necessarily mean more taxes need to be paid, could mean that tax money is diverted from elsewhere, for instance being spent on politicians mates' dodgy schemes)

We currently have an underfunded NHS, undefunded police service, underfunded education system etc. We don't have taxes to divert anywhere currently, where would you divert them from and we are talking about the now not after we develop into a better country with a government that actually wants to invest in its people.

It would be cheaper to have council run nurseries than paying private nurseries, quality would also be easier to control that way

Again, im not sure that's true. Im not sure that because it's managed by local council, the "quality" is better, just look at our education system, we have some of the best, passionate and dedicated teachers in our state schools but due to our current funding situation and conditions in school passed from government/council the school system is breaking down. (Broken)

OP
The problem in our country is a lot of the population seem to want Nordic style public services, but US Republican levels of taxation.

There's also the fact that the rich and powerful are able to structure contracts and services to enrich their friends whilst telling average citizens to blame immigrants/single parents/low income families/people with disabilities. Unfortunately a lot of our country swallow this hook, line and sinker as well.

If we had less corruption in our country and there was political will, we could fund many things better. But we don't, because the government need to pay their paymasters and expect taxpayers to fund everything from their meals at work to their horse's central heating.

Well, for a start I don't think it should be entirely free, as someone else said earlier, people don't value things that are completely free. The fees should be proportional to income up to a reasonable maximum, that would then cost less than entirely free childcare but still make it affordable to all. But the childcare providers have to be funded adequately, that means more tax money going towards childcare provision (doesn't necessarily mean more taxes need to be paid, could mean that tax money is diverted from elsewhere, for instance being spent on politicians mates' dodgy schemes). It would be cheaper to have council run nurseries than paying private nurseries, quality would also be easier to control that way.

@Overthebow this is it. My husband earns a good salary but it's still not enough to stretch to childcare. It should be, and a few years ago it probably would have been, but in today's world it just isn't, and no amount of people telling me we earn above average income (which is true) will magically make it cover the cost of childcare for 2 children.

The thing is that childcare is so, so expensive. I agree with not having children if you can’t afford them, but childcare shouldn’t be the limiting factor in that. I’m lucky that we can afford it, but it is a huge chunk out of our income each month and we have a relatively high household income. The bar is set too high, people with average household incomes really struggle and it shouldn’t be that way. It’s over £1200 per month for a full time place where I live, that’s a huge amount more than a lot of peoples mortgage payments. At the same time childcare providers deserve decent salaries. So it has to be subsidised more than it currently is.

We're agreeing with each other. It is offensive. It is offensive to rip into, let's face it women, for having children.

It is offensive to rip into, again women for not having children/being unable to have children.

Too often discussion around reproduction ends up being about individuals being irresponsible or selfish.

With childcare often it's why do you have these kids if you can't support them? Circumstances can change.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you there's a lot of wringing of hands about women not having children too. Who will look after us when we're old? Who will pay the pensions.

I'm sorry for you losses and my point wasn't an attack on any individual - quite the opposite.

I was a very conscientious sahm so I agree some children who are at home get to school perfectly able to learn. We have to recognise the reality though, that lots of children are largely ignored at home, don’t have many toys and aren’t shown how much fun books can be

I agree but we have funding for 2 year olds here to try and help with the most under privileged gaining access to education and help identify any other issues. But again, we have access to subsidised 2 year education.
I dont agree that if a child misses out on education from aged 2 to 4, they can't learn, i believe, thats rubbish and they can catch up.

@DingDangMintyBells yep that's exactly what I mean.

It's in our own (selfish) interests to ensure children aren't behind when they start school as often we end up paying more for them when they are adults.

I was a very conscientious sahm so I agree some children who are at home get to school perfectly able to learn. We have to recognise the reality though, that lots of children are largely ignored at home, don’t have many toys and aren’t shown how much fun books can be.

The basic to school education is early years a child without listening and attention skills, no fine motor strength is behind before you start reading and writing. This is why research shows 2 year old funding is so important

Pointless just funding education for children over 5 who are unable to learn due to the early years education before that age

We are not just (not even, more like) funding education for over 5 (4) year olds currently, you get funded free hours at aged 3 and some get funded hours at 2, i believe.

Im not sure im understanding you right , do you mean if kids haven't been to nursery before school (alot are aged 4) then theres no point funding their education because they are "unable to learn"??
Im sure i misunderstanding as noone can truly believe that. Some dont go to any nursery before school and the are still more than able learn

Pointless just funding education for children over 5 who are unable to learn due to the early years education before that age.

Having a child is an investment in the future of the country. They are the ones who will work, pay taxes and care for the elderly (including those who did not have children). It makes sense to subsidise them. If not the only way society can build its future workforce is through immigration

Lets concentrate on funding educating them adequately in our schools first.

I know views on childcare are quite mixed here but just on googling it seems our ratios are tighter than other comparable countries

Yes and in my opinion thats a good thing. We shouldn't be trying to reduce the quality of the care so we can get more kids in.
I suppose it depends on what you want the childcare to be - engaging and educational or the bare minimum to keep them safe.

The providers i know want to provide the best care possible it saddens them to think this is going to be diluted.
Again in my opinion, it's the children who gets shafted, again.

Yes, the children are our furure, so if the only subsidised care we can give them is by reducing the quality by reducing ratios, how is that best for the children ?
They are already getting shafted in schools being underfunded, at their most important time to be educated and go on to be the future of our country.
If we cant afford to educate them adequately (or even nearly adequately now) what hope do we have.

Having a child is an investment in the future of the country. They are the ones who will work, pay taxes and care for the elderly (including those who did not have children). It makes sense to subsidise them. If not the only way society can build its future workforce is through immigration

I'm in London and my CM is yet to increase her fees even though babies take more work than 4 year olds. Other child minders cost around £2 more per hour.

My CM seemed most tired the year my DD was 2 as she had 3 the same age (2 years old) 3-4 days a week.

My DD also goes to nursery now. The total for 5 days a week child care thanks to the free hours is about the same.

I know views on childcare are quite mixed here but just on googling it seems our ratios are tighter than other comparable countries

I work in this industry. A large part of the reason people leave is because when they have their own kids, their wages are too low to afford childcare!

So you fall into the category of you should be better supported to stay in your role. That's what needs to be concentrated on, not a free for all.

These settings are just about earning anything as it is. A family members of mine has just closed, they simply couldnt afford to keep it running. It had subsidised children and it just wasnt enough to keep it going. The staff who were passionate and good at their jobs were leaving because it was just becoming unreasonable with all the cuts that are needed to try and stay open.

Again in your position your tax may cover your childcare but that wont be the case for all and your tax has to cover alot of other (already underfunded) services. So the split of that tax is unlikely to cover your cost of good free childcare.

This government is already suggesting fudging ratios so we cam just fill up childcare settings, with the same number of staff- that will affect conditions even more and quality of the care provided.

@tiggergoesbounce I work in this industry. A large part of the reason people leave is because when they have their own kids, their wages are too low to afford childcare!

@Whatafielddayfortheheat but people are leaving those settings now, due to bad conditions. So they would all want to be trained (more cost) and want to work with babies. Im not sure the vast majority wants to be leaving their baby to look after someone elses.

@MarshaBradyo well, people using the childcare will also pay taxes, and there'd be a lot more of them if we could afford the childcare.

The taxpayer rather

I get the arguments for it but then we do have subsidised childcare from age three which I found very useful

Arguments for doing same from one could be made but it’s expensive to fund and higher taxes. I’ve got through all those stages now and paid a lot

@misslonglegs I don't think anyone is saying child care providers should charge less, rather that the government should better subsidise their costs.