To think if childcare was free or heavily subsidised it would solve a lot of problems?

[Dormouse14]

I can't think who it wouldn't benefit.

A good nursery or childminder that was provided for by the state - as schools are - would enable parents who want to work to do so meaning there wasn't a reliance on benefits for single parents and they'd then be paying tax.

Some children would benefit greatly - I mean children who perhaps don't come from orderly homes.

I'm not saying everyone would have to send their child but if the option was there! wouldn't it make a difference to many people?

I don't want to work for the state though so it wouldn't benefit me.

Erm, the taxpayer who is footing the bill? The money would have to be taken from other, arguably more deserving causes.

Why should the state provide this on top of everything else.

What do you mean nicknacks?

Alpaca, i understand that.

The point is, though, that through state subsidised childcare, people would be able to work - would be able to pay taxes which in a roundabout way would pay for their existence - and reduce (hopefully) the welfare bill.

Obviously people don't have to use it - some families will want a sah parent. But if you would like to work but can't due to the costs of childcare which surely applies it many it stops that being a barrier.

Erm, the taxpayer who is footing the bill? The money would have to be taken from other, arguably more deserving causes.

deserving or not, a lot of women can't work because childcare costs are ludicrous. They are much higher here than elsewhere, and I would like to know why. I am not sure if the right answer is to subsidize childcare or reduce red tape on it, or what.

Lady - at the moment the state provides education for the over 5s and healthcare.

I think childcare for under 5s would mean that we would spend less money, not more. People (usually women!) with pre schoolers can't work unless they earn enough to cover childcare costs, but when you work, you pay tax :)

Also in some cases - rare cases thankfully - the child being out of the house and fed and with adults who will care for him will be of great benefit.

Childcare workers aren't paid well are they.... That's what's ludicrous

No because it would be abused. People who refuse to work would stick their children in childcare whilst they sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle in peace.

Child tax credits already pay for childcare tho

I think it could be set up in such a way that only working people could benefit.

But that would reduce the amount of benefits they could access hari as income support (for lone parents under 5) wouldn't be needed as everyone COULD work - the only exceptions being parents of children with a disability of course.

Hey I won't pretend to be an expert but that's just working tax credits I think which would be unlikely to cover £1600 (cost of two children in a nursery near me) for many families. Many people especially those on minimum wage just can't afford that with the best will in the world.

Countries that offer this have seen HUGE societal benefits. It's one of those policies that sounds like a perk for the few, funded by the many, but actually everyone benefits and it saves more money than it costs.

Would the jobs which would be suddenly and miraculously available to these women who normally would not find it worthwhile to work because of the high cost of childcare be sufficiently well paid to suddenly raise loads of significant tax revenue?

I'm not against it in principle at all. But the real pisser in our country is low pay. Everything comes back to that. Why the fuck should people who work 40 hours a week need their income propped up by the government. Scandalous

Yes that's what I'm thinking rally.

I honestly think it would pay for itself. If parents are able to work, they pay taxes - which fund it. Plus hopefully if people are working and not claiming benefits they are able to take advantage of consumerism in a way that isn't possible when two thirds of your net income goes on a nursery.

Hester, I agree with that but in fairness I can't speak on that. I'm not sure why you felt the need to be sarcastic. I do think there are jobs available - whether they are particularly lovely jobs is by the by for the purposes of this thread - but they aren't accessible to those on low or even a moderate salary.

I am an assistant headteacher and if I were a single parent I would be left with £50 at the end of the month after childcare, mortgage and council tax had left my account for two hypothetical children, and if I, on a reasonably good salary,would struggle it isn't hard for me to imagine why Debbie Jones who worked in Tesco before getting pregnant can't work now.

There would be more childcare jobs for starters

I'm not sure. I suspect they would then force single parents to start looking for work when their child reached 12 months. Speaking as a LP who was at work after 12 months I wouldn't recommend it. It takes it's toll. I don't earn enough to pay tax anyway, I've drained the NHS on stress related illness though .

I keep reading that the average cost of a full time child care place is approx £105 - I'd love to know where!

I wasn't being sarcastic Or was I?

Do you mean the word "miraculously"? If so, then sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

It was that word where I thought you were being sarcastic! Thanks for explaining

You don't have to speak in hypotheticals. We know what would happen with universal low-cost childcare, because other countries have been more sensible than us and gone down exactly that route - much of mainland Europe has heavily subsidized childcare, and their skies haven't fallen in. Women's participation in the labour market is way higher as a result.

I think that wages rising and/or rents being more reasonable would help far more.

Both parents working themselves to death in minimum wage jobs is not good for any child - better to have it so that people can live on one or one and a half wages. If both parents want to work (and I am in no way saying they shouldnt) better wages and lower house prices would mean they saw more benefit in the same way as if childcare was free

Before anyone asks - no I have no ideas how you would do this which is why I am not a politician of any sort!

It would cost a fortune. Childcare for even just one child can cost more than some people can earn, not just more than the tax they will pay. That's just for one child. Somebody could have three children needing childcare that costs say £3000 a month. This may enable them to earn £1000 a month resulting in them paying barely any tax, costing the government a lot in tax credits, housing benefit etc and £36,000 a year in childcare. That would increase the social security / childcare bill not reduce it.

I mean I'm currently a self employed cm and I like it that way. I don't want to work for the LA who whoever the government try to get to oversee this idea of the OP's.

You are assuming that being a way from parents for long periods of time is benifical to the child though. Good quality childcare is hard to come by, unfortunalty childcare workers are paid really bad and good staff are hard to come by and keep