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 know too much about German, for example, economics. However from what I remember, they have or had a better trained workforce than hours which is more fit for purpose. E.g. they don't tend to have young people going off to university and studying Media, or Communication Studies. If someone is not cut out for academic life then there are decent training opportunities from 15 and onwards.

I don't know what I'm trying to say with this. I chose Germany because they are a country which is hailed as being an economic success, and I didn't want to choose a Scandinavian country because their populations are so very much smaller than ours.

So from my first paragraph is it true to say that the workforce is better trained and therefore better paid and therefore they contribute more in taxes? Do they have shitty 0 hours contracts for example?

I know this is a muddled post. I don't even know if Germany does have subsidised childcare.

Basically it all comes down again to wages being too low.

I'd love child care for £105 a week! It costs us over 1k a month for a baby and wrap around school care. It's more during the holidays. I earn an average wage. My dh earns a good wage. We can do it but I have no idea how people on less than us manage.

The whole system needs a shake up. Nursery staff should earn more and as a result be well educated and committed to good childcare. The ratios of adult to child need to be adjusted as does the paperwork and red tape.

Other countries have amazingly good childcare systems at a lower cost which proves it can be done.

I'm not sure it necessarily amounts to a long time, given many parents will work part time and many more children have been in childcare from a young age and are nonetheless happy and well adjusted.

I'm not convinced two parents bringing a wage in - even a low wage - is automatically lacking superiority to two parents who don't work and rely on state welfare. Surely when looked at objectively the outcomes for the child tend to be better in a working family.

One of my friends is currently doing 16 hours a week as a healthcare assistant (single parent) but it is giving her relevant experience to help her with an application to be a nurse when her youngest is at school. Working has benefits that aren't just financial.

Germany has massively subsidised childcare and it's bloody brilliant

Lorne, I agree low wages are part of the problem, but my wage isn't low.

However as a single parent I would struggle - really struggle - to have two children in full time childcare.

So in my case low wage isn't a problem but high cost of childcare is. This is an issue that doesn't just impact on people with a low salary. It's moderate earners too.

We have this in Sweden. It's fantastic. DS started going just 15 hours a week when he turned 1 as I'm not working. We pay the maximum amount for this as DH is a high earner, so approx £125 per month. When I return to work or study he can go for as long as I need him to be there at no extra cost. If we have more (never going to happen) it would be an extra £80 a month for #2, £40 a month for #3 and no extra charge for #4 and above (bearing in mind they are in childcare until 6/7)

Exactly Dormouse. I'm a LP and in the uk couldn't afford childcare and rent. I'd be on benefits.

Over here I pay £25 a week for 4 full days. It means I have a good job which I enjoy and we have a nice lifestyle (even though rent is expensive)

Hm sometimes I think I should move to Sweden!

YANBU

A friend of mine was working and got pg in Germany and moved back to the uk to have the baby. She's not planning to come back to Germany.

She was entitled to the full whack German benefits for 12 months even though she's not even living there any more.

A bit bonkers but perfectly legal.

Tax would go even further through the roof for ordinary families. The rich wouldn't use free child care and would avoid paying the extra tax. You'd be at the mercy of the government to regulate all services and I don't want my kids looked after by anyone but me and I think fully funded childcare would pressurize families to use it if they didn't want/need to.

Tax would go even further through the roof for ordinary families. The rich wouldn't use free child care and would avoid paying the extra tax. You'd be at the mercy of the government to regulate all services and I don't want my kids looked after by anyone but me and I think fully funded childcare would pressurize families to use it if they didn't want/need to.

What a load of bollocks Marmite. Why would families feel pressurised to use childcare they don't need?

The fab thing about subsidized childcare is that if you want to SAHP then you simply don't have to get involved.

Everyone's a winner.

Plus the government regulates all child minders and nurseries now anyway, so what's the difference?

How many part time jobs are there in countries where there is subsidised childcare? I think the average model in France is to work 4 days a week aftera few months maternity leave, but I thought in Scandinavia mothers tended to work full time when they return to work (but return later than here). Not sure about Germany, I'm pretty sure they have a long maternity leave though. I'm just thinking there may be more to the model than just subsidised childcare so we'd need to work out how the whole system works together. And what are the effects of different policies, i.e. does working full time lead to greater gender equality and what do we lose by that? Would letting more fathers and mothers work 4 days be better or worse than the current general DH FT/DW PT overall? Would we lose freedom to choose how we want to parent or would it dismantle patriarchial systems?

Obviously I'd love to have a smaller childcare bill (£1k a month here for 1x3 days of nursery plus 2x3 days of wrap around care).

I think it would be a great idea.

My only concern is that in some areas/fields there is the problem of there being enough jobs to go round already. If there were a lot more people available for work it would be even harder to get a job.

The norm in Germany is one to three years maternity. At 3 a child is entitled to a kindergarten place (I'm not sure if parents pick up part of the bill for this as DS isn't three yet). Kindergarten last until 5 or 6, when they start school.

The benefits for staying at home are great but I have to say even though childcare is subsidised it's not easy to get back into work if you want or need to.

Often preschool childcare and even primary school only run until lunchtime, meaning that parents who work full time need to find wrap around care. This is becoming easier in the cities but still very difficult in more rural areas.

I am curious... Where precisely are all these ft jobs that the sahp can snap up as soon as they have someone else caring for their children?

It is a sensible idea and would have a lot of benefits, including paying for itself and more. The problem will be the initial investment to set up the infrastructure and a change in attitude, both to the individualistic capitalist views - you chose to have kids, you pay for them - and the view of childcare workers as low paid and undervalued. The childcare workers in an article I read on childcare in a Scandinavian country were well qualified and respected, presumably with a decent salary too.

Nurseries and childminders could remain privately own/be self employed as well as having state run services. They would receive the subsidies in the same way as they do currently for tax credits and vouchers etc.

It isn't just low paid workers who are out off returning to work, in fact they are offered subsidies in tax credits. It's more likely to be families making a decision that they are better off with one parent being at home due to childcare costs. This is my situation and I left work earning £30k, just enough to cover the cost to work with one child but two in nursery would leave us much poorer than not working at all. Not only does my tax contribution stop, but my potential earnings over my lifetime drops dramatically. I'm not going to find a job paying a comparable salary after six years at home, nevermind at the level I may be on after promotion over those years. That extra income would've meant greater spending for VAT, buying a bigger house for stamp duty and us paying to employ the childcare providers, cleaners, gardeners, builders for home improvements, more staff in shops selling or making things to meet the demand of families' increased spending power. The jobs aren't there now but they were there when the economy was healthier and people had more disposable income. There might even be parents who have the time to set up their own businesses to create more jobs. It's only three years, from 12 months until school starts, this is needed, and that child will grow up to work fifty years or more, as do their parents (mostly).

I also get the frustration that a lot of families need two incomes due to the cost of living, especially housing, but I can't see the answer to that and sadly don't see it changing.

Presumably these mothers worked before they had kids. So if they have a semi decent maternity leave and the possibly of going back to their jobs once maternity leave is over, there shouldn't be a problem.

If you want to take a few years out to raise your kids, then you'd have to be aware that the longer you spend out of the workplace, the more difficult it will be to get back in.

But the point is that the cost of childcare should not be the only thing stopping parents from going back to work.

What infrastructure would have to be set up? As far as I can see there would be a cost to local government of running the subsidy system, but aside from that I can't see it would be a big deal.

Over here I simply find my childminder, agree a contract with her, then she sends forms off to local government who then works out the level of subsidy I'm entitled to and I then pay them monthly, and they pay her.

Easy!

It's not a bad idea but it would just cost far too much. I think maybe consider it for a first child only. Each woman entitled to one child 's free care till five. But even then it would still cost too much. Would people be prepared to pay a lot of extra tax to fund this. I don't think they would be. you'd get the SAHM's in a fury because their partners were paying extra tax and they weren't benefitting from it at all. No it wouldn't work.

I don't get your reasoning Vivienne - surely the tax paid by all the parents back in the job market would go some way to funding the subsidy?

It must be possible, otherwise how do countries like Germany manage it?