Universal, free childcare - is it a solution?

[KateMumsnet]

This week, Mumsnet Blogger Mummyisagadgetgeek reports back from an event organized by the thinktank Progress on the subject of universal childcare. Should they win the next election, Labour are considering it as a possible policy - so we thought it would be good to find out what it was all about.

So: read her blog report from the event, tell us what you think here on the thread - and if you blog, let us know about it. We'll be tweeting posts next week.

That is a bit too simplistic. Increasing the ratios means more work for the childcarers, more equipment and resources. I'm not convinced that it would significantly decrease fees.

I think it's a combination of two or three factors: the ratios are 5-7 per adult in some countries, the cost of living and house prices are extremely high here, and childcare in many European countries is more heavily subsidised.

I personally don't see how they will be able to offer free childcare to all when they've already had to shelve plans to increase the free entitlement from 5 to 10 sessions a week.
They can't even fund the 5 sessions adequately: they rely on childcare settings to make up the deficit. Are we expected to subsidise universally free care, too?

And where is the money for this 'free' childcare meant to come from exactly?

Are you willing to pay Danish rate of Income tax (40% and up basic) - to get your "free" childcare
or do you want it added to the National debt (as Tax credits have been)
or that your children and grandchildren are crippled with tax to pay for what you treated as "free"

there are no other options
tax now
tax later
---- take your pick

TalkingPeace and DamnBamboo make exactly the right point: it's futile talking about this without talking about where the money will come from. It's like talking about what you'd do if you won the lottery.

People have been talking about where the money would come from. It could actually be a conservative policy if it was introduced the right way i.e. abolish all tax credits and child benefits, but offer free (at the point of delivery) childcare. Encourage people to work, while removing support for those who don't.

Policy is a lot more complex than tax and spend or cut taxes. If measures stimulate the economy, they increase the overall tax base and individuals don't need to pay higher percentage tax. It would be quite complex econometrics to work out both the financial and social implications of this policy.

jellybean sorry, referred to you when I meant someone else's post in my previous post.

The problem with removing support and offering free childcare for those that work is that you penalise those who cannot work or cannot find jobs.

Those feckless lazy benefit scroungers are far bigger in imagination than in fact.
Remove benefits from already struggling families, and it's the children who ultimately suffer.

Tanith do you think then that a situation where going to work ends up being a luxury, as after costs you're worse off working than you would be on benefits is tenable or even desirable?

Mainly.

That would be good if there were jobs for people who wanted to work . So what would happen to the lower earners who still pay tax, albeit less than the hr tax payers?
I do think 2 parents working is a luxury if they can't afford childcare. If a whole wage is paying for childcare that person is hardly helping the economy in terms of spending power.
A life of one parent working and one as a sahp is certainly desirable to those who have chosen to do it.

"If a whole wage is paying for childcare that person is hardly helping the economy in terms of spending power."

So somebody spending money on childcare is not spending? How's that?

If two people go out to work, pay taxes and NI, and pay a provider for childcare, who again pays taxes and NI that's worse for the economy than only one person working, their partner staying at home, and the childcare provider having less business. How?

WidowWadman

I didn't say it was worse, it just isn't any better. The childcare workers I know are mainly part time and don't pay tax btw.
One person working on min wage can quite often have and spend a higher disposable income than 2 working when one wage is spent on childcare. The sahps that I am in contact have between £600 and £1000 disposable income a month. Completely to do with as they please. I know families with dual income with nothing left.

WidowWadman, that's nothing to do with the point I am making.

Do you think it's fair to abandon children to poverty and starvation because their parents are unable to work? It's certainly not the type of society I want to live in!

Particularly when many of those who would receive free childcare could afford to pay for it.

morethan "One person working on min wage can quite often have and spend a higher disposable income than 2 working when one wage is spent on childcare. The sahps that I am in contact have between £600 and £1000 disposable income a month. Completely to do with as they please. I know families with dual income with nothing left. "

I know that - and I think that's very wrong. Help with childcare is a way out of that situation.

If you work in a crap 'menial' job then that happens anyway, free childcare would still help. The problem would be when/if it is set alongside 'now everyone can/will have to work'.

morethan, I think the idea would be that the spending on childcare created jobs and thus stimulated growth, in a positive cycle. In grand economic terms, the individual paying their whole wage in childcare doesn't matter, it is the fact they are spending that matters.

This is not what I think, it is just an illustration of how this proposal could be a conservative policy. I actually think we should make it as easy as possible for a parent to stay at home with a very young child if they want to, while making it as easy as possible for both parents to work if they want to. I'm not sure what the best solution to that is, but in the right context free childcare could be part of it.

If the minimum wage (some are even paid below this) became the living wage many families would not need to receive extra benefits because they earn so little now and childcare is not affordable to them
High quality has to have a price
It is the funding streams that need reforming and all workers paid fairly...go after those employers who pay poorly and half the problem would be solved

This policy would be of overall benefit to the economy and the cost would be met (and exceeded) by the tax contibutions of the second working parents. And getting the second parent back to work has been advocated by thinktanks looking at stimulating economic growth in the economy more generally.

In London childcare costs are just ridiculous (we are expecting out first at looking at £1200 p/c/m). The availability of free childcare would empower more people (not just women) so they can choose whether to be a SAHP (which is an amazingly important job) or to be a working parent and not have that choice taken away from them by virtue of outrageous childcare costs. The current system disproportionately impacts on women's ability to choose to go back to work .

However, I fail to see why we wait until children are 3 to provide any subsidied childcare to anyone but those on a low income. What happens between 1 and 3?? But that is another thread entirely....

I'm not sure really. It would be good if the free 15 hours came in after maternity leave finished for those who decide to return to work or after 3 years like it is now for those who don't work.

tax contributions of the second working parents
you are assuming that there will be enough jobs to go round that earn enough to pay the taxes greater than the cost of providing the child care

I see no evidence to support that assumption

the VAST majority of mothers already go out to work
the concept of a SAHM who does not depend upon benefits only exists in wealthy enclaves mainly in London and planet Mumsnet

First, regarding the dismissive comments about state childcare, the council nurseries in my area are great, and offer high quality paid for childcare at a lower rate than the private nurseries, though it's still a lot of money.

As for the option of free childcare or more subsidised childcare, as well as wrap around care, would give working parents more options - I worked full time after having children until I was made redundant (nearly 3 years after returning to work from maternity leave the 2nd time) and am now using part time childcare while I try to start freelancing from home. My parents are actually paying most of the cost of this at the moment (they're not together but are both contributing), and my dad helps us out a bit with other extras (I'm very lucky, I know). DS2 is at the local school nursery class and that's free but it's just every morning (15 hours as 3 hours a day), and so that doesn't actually reduce the costs of using a childminder. Next year when DS2 starts school, I will probably try to find work outside the home - having to cover costs of nearly £300 a week before I bring anything home won't make sense for temping, it barely made sense for a permanent job but I stayed because it would have got easier if I'd remained in employment, from September 2013.

Also, if childcare costs were free or even considerably reduced, part time work to spend more time with the children would be easier, and that could offer more flexibility.

I'm quite annoyed that those of you who have the choice to be SAHMs want to deny choices to those of us who can't afford or don't want to be at home full time. Because that's how I interpret a lot of the most vocal contributors to this thread.

I'm also annoyed by people who see such proposals as an attack on money no object childcare. I'm lucky to have been able to find a childminder whose rates were only about 40% of my take home pay (for one child) when I first went back to work, and that she turned out to be an excellent choice as well as being more affordable than any nursery. Council nurseries at that point would have been 50%, private nurseries would have been 75-100+%. There are a lot of not really by choice SAHMs in this area.

Finally, if you're concerned about quality then I think the Tories' proposals put forward by the likes of Elizabeth Truss are REALLY scary - deregulate CMs and allow them to look after more children. There are reasons for the ratios as they are at present.

I'm afraid comments regarding regarding the "vast" majority of mothers working at the moment are incorrect. In recent years the number of women with children who go back to work has been in decline and the UK is behind many developed countries in this respect (see recent report from the Comission on Living Standards which refers to this issue regarding women in general and notes that this falls even further for women with children).

As for childcare options, the majority of the country trusts the state to educate their children from 4 onwards and yet I am suprised that there is hostility from so many toward state nurseries. Seems like a bit of a contradiction.

As for the taxes costs argument, unless there is the demand (i.e. people who will be going back to work with enough income to make it worthwhile) there will be no reason to supply the childcare so not like there is any wasted costs from this perspective.

Finally I echo the fact that it a bit disappointing that people are willing to be so restrictive/vocal about a policy that may improve other women's lot even if it will not have a direct impact on themselves. IF it can be shown NOT to be a net costs to the economy (even if it does not provide an actual uplift) then I cannot see why people would be against this policy unless they believe that all women should be a home with the baby regardless of circumstance.

The Libs Dems are looking at this.
Generally states do it when they need to. They pulled out all the stops during WWII. Women loved it - all that social stuff working in factories, freed from babies at home all day.

Then the war was over we didn't need women working and they were all carted back home to get back on the gin or valium and slowly die inside - although not all as my mother was fond to remind my father she supported him for over 10 years when he was a medical student and was the first woman in her area to claim the married man's tax allowance as a woman.

I doubt there is a business case for free childcare as we are not short of workers.

A lot of new jobs are part time and going to women so one interesting issue is whether if more and more men are stuck at home not happy they will push for free childcare. Miriam Gonzalez a lawyer who well out earns her husband Mr Clegg is a good exampel of a modern working c ouple. Clegg earns much less so you don't do anything to spoil MG's career as that brings home the real bacon.

Of course there are plenty of SAHMs not dependent on benefits. Some women want to stay at home with their children and have husbands who earn enough for them to do so. Largely irrelevant to this debat though, as these are people who can afford childcare and free childcare would not affect their decision.

According to Government Statistics
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/mothers-in-the-labour-market/2011/index.html
67% of mothers work
and once you add on all of those not in work but on benefits (including disability and carers)
there are very few SAHMs who could go out to work magically

its a myth
and the jobs are not there

Have not yet read teh whole thread, buy I think this is an excellent idea - just like free universal school provision has been available for many years. Its not complusory - you don;t have to use it, but its there if you need it or want it. Fo children form very deprived or chaotic backgrounds it would be a godsend. And as a higher tate tax payer (whose Dc are too old to benefit) I am very happy to pay for it - might even make me vote labour!
And, yes it would provide jobs for nursery workers

Also those benefits mothers who never work and say oh I could not possibly leave a 12 year old to work when some of us have left 2 week year olds to go back to work full time having an excuse about childcare. We could say okay free childcare so you work or we could even have it where they work so if they are breastfeeding they can pop in to feed the baby as needed. Mind you few of those ones breastfeed anyway and we hvae the worst breastfeeding rates in Europe particularly amongst the unwaged sadly.