Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

Childcare costs vary from £6-£12 per hour and parents should prepare for this, providers are often earning little after overheads and are in crisis.

Benefits should help low earners or single parents that are struggling with the fees.

We can’t ignore that providers are charging a reasonable fee in most cases.

@tiggergoesbounce well it creates jobs in the childcare industry, for a start...

Sorry that should have said
but i cant find anything showing a poor economoy improved based on a more heavily subsidised childcare system than ours but im interested if you have any ?

@TheGirlWhoTamedTheDragon

No. That isn't what I said, at all

A PP said they didnt agree with free childcare.
Your response was something like "i will say it very slowly again it more than pay for itself"

The fact is heavy state subsidies to make childcare affordable for all have been shown to more than pay for themselves in economic benefit: more people working, more people paying taxes (both the parents and childcare workers, so the state gets some of the subsidy back immediately in tax anyway) and better productivity

The data is all freely available if you wish to look it up

I have looked for data showing a direct correlation with free/heavily subsidised childcare and a better economy, and there isn't any. They may have a better economy so can afford to subsidise more but i cant find anything showing a poor economoy improved based on subsidised childcare but im interested if you have any ?

One of my question is if you work on the basis that you are paying for everyones childcare or even more heavily subsidised, more than it is now (as we dont do badly from 2 years old i yhink it is)that will be billions more but Not every additional person who puts their child in childcare will then go on to work, not all the unemployed want to work.

The areas we have major gaps in industry are jobs that noone wants, where skilled people are leaving due to conditions.
You cant force people into those roles

What industries/sectors do you think all these newly found working people are going into??
There are already hundreds of applicants per job at the moment, gaining employment that people believe they deserve, isnt easy.

The bonus of affordable childcare for younger babies means parents (mums) dont have to leave their jobs, that doesnt create a job, it just means someone else (a man) does get to take it off her, which is amazing (and we need something in itself to assist those) but not creating or filling vacancies.

@Overthebow yes, it's ridiculous that you get nothing (except tax free childcare if you earn enough) between 1 and 3. What are you meant to do?! If they acknowledge the need at 3, then why not before?

Hi don’t think childcare should be free as it’s people’s own choice to have children, but there should be a better balance which would in turn help the economy. Childcare should be completely tax free, and perhaps 15 hours funded from 1 years old for everyone.

Countries not counties.

@TheGirlWhoTamedTheDragon

The counties with the heaviest childcare subsidies such as DK use public state run nurseries. It's still not completely free but very cheap.

Nurseries in the UK are private businesses therefore the EU model wouldn't work here. Too much variable costs through the regions.

As mentioned in my earlier post, we would need council run childcare centres to mirror their models.

But realistically, that’s not going to happen is it? All political parties are going for the silver vote. That doesn’t include free or very subsidised childcare. As much as it maybe should?

I am simply suggesting an idea that could help a lot of people in our current climate. But no one is prepared to consider! It’s not novel, my grandparents had a 5.5 year gap due to financial constraints. No benefits and not much in the way of childcare in the 1950s you see.

@Pleatsplease but why reatrict women in that way? Why not male the system work better so that women don't have to worry about having two in childcare?

I am only one person but teachers' salaries are standardised so I represent many people, a lot of whom are women.

But you are one person.

You can’t deny that having a larger gap, for a lot of women would save them having to give up work because childcare is more than their salary?

I had a seven year gap because I couldn’t afford 2 children in childcare. I wanted 4 but I ended up with 7 due to secondary infertility. The amount of comments I get about the kids probably not being close (when they actually are) is really telling of society’s opinion. Bigger age gaps are treated with disdain and we know people like to fit in.

All I am trying to say, is that a bigger gap would be a solution to this issue for a lot of women.

No. That isn't what I said, at all.

The fact is heavy state subsidies to make childcare affordable for all have been shown to more than pay for themselves in economic benefit: more people working, more people paying taxes (both the parents and childcare workers, so the state gets some of the subsidy back immediately in tax anyway) and better productivity.

The data is all freely available if you wish to look it up.

That's really expensive, you must be further South then me. I'm in the NW and I used to pay full time childminder £700 a month before hours and funding kicked in at 3.

Maybe the gov could do a scheme where if you have to pay over a certain amount per child they will pay the difference. Like they will subsidise anything over £800 but then put a higher end cap on the daily nursery rate (for North and a higher cap in London).

@Pleatsplease that's only true if your career allows for pay progression. Aged 23 I became a teacher and earned £23K. Aged 33 I stopped teaching having had my son (NB I tried to have him earlier, I had infertility). I was earning £27K then. 4K over 10 years. I hadn't been able to achieve that 'better financial position' you mention. And loads of jobs are the same.

Now I have 2 children and I can't afford to return to teaching, and even if I could the working conditions are not conducive to family life (but that's another thread).

I think the government would like to use schools from birth all on higher ratios than now. unfortunately they haven't considered the extra skills needed to care for lo's any more than they did when lowering the current nursery age. Current school staff don't want to be nursery nurses changing nappies and feeding on mass babies need different care to 4 year olds.

Read my post again.

I said free or very heavily subsidised childcare. In many of those countries the maximum cost is a couple of hundred pounds per month. For full time nursery in the UK you can easily be paying £2000 per child.

A lot of older first time mothers will be more financially independent so it’s less likely to be as much of an issue.

2 close together (or 3,4,5,5…) if you can afford them without being subsidised by the taxpayer is not an issue.

Having 2 close together so that you are ‘forced’ to give up work for financial reasons is ridiculous. If time is on your side then wait, it will make your life so much easier. Financially, I don’t mean because they’ll have different interests and be in different life stages and all of the other reasons people say they want 2 close together on here. Financially 1 set of nursery fees all the way to 1 set of university fees. It’s an option that people dismiss!

@Pleatsplease so older mothers, who couldn't find a decent partner before their late 30s, should have bigger gaps between their children?

Point is there are good reasons why some women have children close together.

@Eeiliethya I have a 4 year old. We get childcare vouchers due to her DOB.

Her child care for 3 days a week with a childminder before she was eligible for funded hours was £1,100 per month.

Also I said subsided more not free. As people don't appreciate free at the point of use.

Here’s a couple of ideas?

Have a bigger gap between your children. There’s no god given right to the ‘ideal’ 1.5 - 2.5 year gap. Childcare is much more expensive for those preschool years.

Women don’t treat their job as the expendable one. Even if it pays less. Flexible working and doing pick ups/drop offs needs to become as normal for men as it is for women. Both parents going part time or compressing hours. There are options but as a society we need to push for them. That will never happen if women default to dropping their jobs, leaving men to progress up the ladder.

A few years out of work women become less employable and men have generally progressed up the ladder and their salary has becoming indispensable.

@Reugny it adds up to quite a lot, you can open a tax free childcare account from 31 days before returning to work. For every £8 you pay in, the gov add £2. You can have an account per child.

You can also use the funded hours at the same time from when child becomes eligible.

There is a max of £500 contributed by gov in a 3 month period (1000 for disabled children).

It's better than nothing and I was grateful for it.

Not sure what the answer is, the funded hours don't cover the operating costs which is why some providers don't accept funded hour children.

If on UC, you can also claim back 85% of childcare costs up to £646 for one child and £1108 for 2 or more children.

I appreciate it's the squeezed middle who aren't eligible for UC that feel this pinch the most but those earning/working hours over a certain amount qualify for the full 30 hours and tax free childcare on top 🤷🏼‍♀️.

There's already help for the vast majority in one form or another but it can't just be free, because childcare is privatised in the UK. Nurseries and childminders are ultimately a business and where would be the incentive to remain operating at a set cost per child that likely wouldn't cover all operational costs?

Unless the government open a fuck load of "council run" nurseries I don't see how free childcare for all could work.

The issue is that many, many people are on minimum wage, and in that case there is just no way to return to work if you have 2 kids. The childcare costs more than your salary. So there's a huge exodus from the workforce and it's almost always women. And if they claim benefits they then can't save and get themselves out of the poverty trap. Your benefits stop once you have £16K savings, but that's nowhere near enough to buy a house, so people are trapped.

I and many other childless people on the thread have said we are fully supportive of paying more taxes to subsidised childcare

Come out with nasty bullshit like this about how people who cant/don't want to have children should be specifically penalised makes me wonder why I bother

I've already paid 20k in an attempt to have children, do I get a refund for that?

Maybe try going after the countless men who don't financially support their own children first. Or employers who don't pay a living wage. Or companies who avoid tax. Or MPs claiming 200k of expenses.

No it isn't if you need full time care for a child under 1 to 3.

This is horribly offensive to those of us who cannot have children no matter how hard we try!! It is in fact discriminatory on several grounds so would never get past Parliament or the courts.

Or do my 13 miscarriages give me an exemption?