Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

Flexible work is the norm for dads, anyone is entitled to making flexible working requests, doesn’t matter if you’re a parent, male or female.

And this doesn’t mean I think it should be free, or the childcare providers get less. I think there should be a genuine subsidy that doesn’t affect the quality of care.

🤣🤣🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Read a book about economics, please.

Staying at home should be a privilege given to only those who can afford it (not me!!) without tax payer subsidy. We need people to be employed if they are physically/mentally able to work. We have a massive shortage of workers.

Employers should be made to pay a wage that people can live on without tax payer subsidy if they are working full time. Full time work should always pay more than benefits. Employers should be made to give proper contracts, terms and conditions. Flexible working for Dads needs to be the norm, like it is for Mums!

Parents should be prepared to share the burden of being a family, men need to pull their weight at home but equally women need to change their mindset and allow men to do this. Once children are in school, not as much childcare is needed if BOTH parents are working flexibly.

I’m not sure heavily subsidised childcare is the answer, it’s making work pay and encouraging women to work. And that money comes out of the pockets of employers not the tax payer.

The idea that people should only have children if they can afford the childcare is a depressing one. It implies that people on low incomes shouldn't have children, which is naive at best and fairly evil at worst.

I think the issue is that the cost of childcare is so high in the UK compared to lots of other countries. This means a lot of mothers (because it does still tend to be the mum sadly) end up having to stay home, miss out on a few years career progression and therefore financially worse off in the long run. A more progressive society would even the costs out so it would allow mothers to afford to work if they want to. Here in the UK childcare can be more than your actual salary, how is that fair?! And combined with maternity pay being rubbish it’s just not geared up well for the average earner.

Why is it illogical to pay 9 to 15 hours childcare over one year..around £2850 ...to avoid an adult lifetime of weekly benefits, free prescriptions etc?

I don't want to pay for MPs meals and energy bills but I don't get a choice in that 🤷. I think it needs a tota reform, it doesn't need to be free exactly but it needs to be accessible, affordable and regulated. At the end of the day it's not really a fair argument to say there isn't the money, if the government can pay their mates millions in dodgy contracts that bypassed all forms of checks then they can afford to reform childcare. And for every "it's a choice, I don't want to pay for other peoples children" then can I opt out of paying for any medical provision for anyone who smokes, drinks or does drugs? It's the same thing, they're all a choice and a HUGE burden on the NHS which wastes valuable finances and resources.
Basically, it shouldn't ever be that women/caregivers are forced out of work due to insane childcare prices, which is actually the reality at the end of the day.

In theory, if there is free/low costs childcare for working parents then more parents will work and therefore more taxes will be paid.

But posters on here say that it costs nearly all their wages to send children to nursery. So if it's that expensive, won't the country just be paying out a lot more than they receive in tax? How is that beneficial?

It’s typical round here, actually one of the lower cost ones available in the local area.

I think Norway have a good set up all children from 1 entitled to a place the fee is capped regardless of salary at about £265 a month and if lower income then less is paid. Its paid for by taxes but it's fair.

The UK could follow the model there is the funds to do so if certain things got dropped like space projects or millions in schemes which won't happen such as some of the years of tidal.

But why not?

If anything the person on 200k should have more thrown at them because they’ll be constituting far more to the economy and paying far more in tax than those on less than half of that.

You do the same for healthcare and a state pension though.

Unless you earn over £40k a year for your entire working life you’ll also be a drain on taxes, just from you usage of the NHS and social care in future.

The vast majority of citizens never pay in what they take out, so stop bleating on about subsidising when you’re subsidised yourself by the wealthy.

You would have to include payment for travelling time too.....personally I also don't think parents earning £200k a year should get the same support as those earning half that

The majority of single parents are Mothers. The majority of stay at home parents in a heterosexual relationship are Mothers.

Mothers are penalised. If the Men wanted change - there would be.

The whole childcare system requires massive reform in this country. It’s simply not working for anyone.

I wouldn't want to pay for other people's childcare. People should factor childcare in when they decide to have a family in my opinion.
I'm centre left, but don't think that paying for childcare is the answer as it does nothing to address the culture of presenteeism, long hours, putting children in childcare for long days so both parents can work (often in jobs with poor terms and conditions).

But I do think the government should properly fund the funded hours so that it covers the costs of providing the 3 year old hours without hiking the prices up elsewhere.
I'd also be in favour of better statutory maternity pay, better shared parental leave, better flexibility in the workplace as standard, and more things to promote men stepping up with domestic and childcare arrangements.

That's a very expensive nursery and not the typical I'm in London and 40 hours childcare costs less than half of that with outstanding childminders even less.

Agree with this. Have acquaintances who are now reducing their hours / stopping working in order to access free childcare, whereas DH and I both work F/T and are charged through the nose for the privilege. I'm not sure if we're actually the daft ones in this scenario now!!

Parents working should be incentivised, but the current system is backwards and in many cases parents end up worse off by both working full time. A system where there are childcare subsidies for both parents working 30+ hours per week would make more sense and be more beneficial to the wider economy.

Many people have no/fewer children because they know they can't afford it. Some of us are happily childfree. Why should both of those groups have to keep subsidising the less responsible who think it's OK to have as many children as they like because they expect the state (ie taxpayers) to fund them?
Children are the responsibility of their parents, and that includes financial responsibility.

But parents pay for childcare, not just Mothers. The cost of childcare should not automatically be deducted from the Mother’s wage. It should be deducted from the combined household income and considered alongside other things like pensions and the lasting effect of the mother having a break from the workplace.

Are you seriously suggesting trusses pack them in as many as you can approach to childcare was a good approach for early years development and education? How many children aged 3 or younger can you give quality time to at once? 4, 5, 8 15?

For me It's the frustration that if I didn't work I could have support with childcare when realistically I wouldn't need childcare coz I was at home but because I do work I have to pay fees, plus taxes plus after school fees.
I'm not expecting free childcare but I don't think it's fair that because I'm actually working and not claiming benefits that I get penalised more.

You shouldn’t have to subsidise for parents. You have a right to warm a decent wage - the same right is not extended to many working Mothers when CC is taken into consideration.

blame the government not the parents.

I'm not saying they do need more I think funding should be paid for the hours you work plus commute as it is I have parents getting 10 hours more than they need at school who are only term time then having to pay for 14 weeks childcare in other settings....and get tax credits....
If access to childcare automatically meant you worked as long as you could they would all be working 10 hours a week more.

Totally appreciate that it's not everyone's choice to have kids. However, like it or not, our economy does depend on SOME of us having kids - otherwise there will be no one paying taxes to cover our own pensions and services by the time we are retired.

So yes, everyone does eventually use the NHS, but similarly society benefits from the children who grow up and work here, hence the reasonable comparison.

I think the issue at the minute is the cost of childcare - I work full time, as does my husband, and we pay childcare for 1 child for 2 days per week (we have grandparents to help with the rest.) Just this 2 days per week is more than the cost of our mortgage. So I can completely understand how it is financially savvier to stop working or reduce hours to avoid paying childcare, and claim benefits to that end, which is what a lot of people end up doing... burdening society.

To me it would be far better for society to cover childcare costs and in doing so encourage more mothers (or both parents) to work, stimulating the economy and reducing benefits bill this way.