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?

We don't have a garden - can't afford one - so that's part of the reason that DH provides more trips as the kids get fed up of being cooped up and that wouldn't be good for them. Obviously not that many get done after school during the week as there is not enough time but he generally does soft play once a week and something on the longer Friday (half day here for the schools). But the school is nearly a mile from our house and parks are in the opposite direction so even doing the park really needs the car.

However, you clearly have made up your mind that childminders are just milking hardworking parents and making a fortune for sitting around drinking tea all day.

No I have not. I was asking and you gave a good answer. I was, as you see, questioning the cost of the extra room and you are right, if you are renting that's a genuine extra cost that you have. But if you buy, while it adds to your start up costs, it's not lost money at all.

I know a few childminders and I know they work hard and I know they don't get paid loads. My questions were mainly concerning that it seems rather expensive here and I was wondering where the money was going and you gave a good answer. There is nothing I said that suggested that I think CMs are "milking" working parents. If I did, I am sorry.

i know the cost difference between us and some other countries is due to subsidies, but as I said i have used childcare in another country and know people in other countries where it isn't subsidized and the cost is much less, so I want to know what accounts for the difference. I never ever suspected that the cost difference was because CMs here are living it large.

I think our high living costs and high housing costs have a pretty big impact on childminding - fuel (car and home), food, an extra room - that adds up to a fair whack for most childminders. Most people don't buy their house outright so the extra space needed is money they're paying out every month on a mortgage. They might own it eventually, but if they did an office job they wouldn't need that extra space so it needs to be considered. It also rules many people out of childminding as if you can't afford a bit enough house whether bought or rented, it's very difficult to do. So around here where house prices are high there is a huge shortage of childminders. Our local school (250 pupils) is served by just two. The next school (450 pupils) I think has maybe 6.

In Germany it is done at the expense of single people with no kids - they pay the highest taxes. SOMEONE always has to pay....

single person - no kids- national average wage -
Germany 39.9% tax
UK 24.9% tax

child tax credits bring that down by almost 20% for a married couple with 2 kids in Germany.

?
But single people with no kids will benefit from the children raised by other people, other people's children will be the workers of the future.
?
We need the next generation of people in order for the human race to continue and progress.
Having children involves huge personal cost and sacrifice, why should parents bear all the burden and let those who don't have children get the benefits without sharing any of the costs??

But those single people with no kids are also likely to have contributed more financially - they're less likely to have claimed benefits, won't have cost as much in NHS (births etc), won't have required schooling for several children...Yes, we need a reasonable number of children but to say that parents are unfairly bearing the burden of children is a bit off.

I'd rather money was pumped into looking after our elderly.

they already share the costs - of education and healthcare and pensions etc... everyone in employment shares the cost of the future and previous generations - which is as it should be.

What happens in some other countries is that at that single and childless phase of your life you pay MORE than anybody else - in some countries up to 100% more than anybody else - and will continue to do so unless you have children, or you retire.

Having children is still a lifestyle choice - people don't generally make that choice if they cannot afford it. (income/benefits - whatever). The lowering of taxation makes it more affordable, maybe I would have had 4 instead of the 2 that I could afford... maybe lots of people would have more kids than the economic position of the time would have allowed, that would not necessarily be a good thing.

?
Children are not just a financial cost, they are a drain on parents in terms of time, freedom stress etc, in that respect parents bear more of the burden.
Birth rates are dropping, we may soon reach a point where we have to find ways to encourage people to have more children than they would ideally like to ?

Few parents have children because they think "oh, we need to have some babies and boost the British population. Come on honey, lets hop in to bed and make a future taxpayer". People have babies because they want to, for the most part.

Now it may be that we will need to increase birth rates in the future and doing something to either reduce living costs or increase incomes could be a part of that - but those who chose to have children aren't selflessly saving the world.

Cherrypi totally agree. More babies in childcare (free or otherwise) sounds positively distopian not a thing to be aimed for.

Please let's stop accepting the status quo that to survive a family must have 80 hours of work happening. It didn't used to be the case because house prices were lower in relation to wages. I'm not suggesting a return to 1950 attitudes to women, but if families only had to work 40 hours between then to pay the bills, this would lead to two adults working part time being able to provide their children with developmentally ideal childhood and probably a lot less stressed! Who says that a fulfilling career requires full time (for either gender), only the current economic situation!

No political party of any stripe would even hint at doing this as it would be utter suicide. The very significant number of voters (single, childfree, elderly) would turn on them faster than you can say knife.

This would not be a zero sum game either as I can easily see taxes rising to cover it even if they stop CTC and CB. My tax bill is high enough already thanks.

At what point does personal responsibility kick in?

Would this be a universal benefit or only available to those who are working?
What would you be willing to give up for it to be available?

Primary you are utterly ignoring the literally millions of single parents out there.

Now try and live in the real world....

Why does full time have to be forty hours? I think it could be less. Then everyone would have more flexibility. The old model of work thirty to forty years full time then retire needs to change. If full time was gradually phased down to say thirty hours then less childcare would be needed.

instead of child benefit provide free childcare

Current child benefit rates are £20.50 per week for the eldest, £13.55 for subsequent children. It would barely touch the sides of the cost of free universal childcare.

Losing child benefit would also penalise SAHM's

Statistically - Thanks for pointing out the correlation between house prices and availability of childcare. That hadn't occurred to me. We live in a nice mc area and when ds1 was in pre school a few years ago there was 2 or 3 childminders serving the whole school of 250 or so and none had places for the following year. Luckily my work agreed to school hours and then the school started its own at-cost wrap-around care so I've been able to increase hours again. I could not understand why there were so few childminders when the demand was there

I already Fay for enough freebies for peopke via tax thanks

His about this to solve childcare if you can't afford children don't have them

Very insightful Thefishwife

Sounds similar to here cheminotte except the school clubs aren't nearly big enough to meet demand either. Nearest school has, I think, 26 spaces. Plus say 6 spaces between the two childminders so 32. Between 250 children in an area where the cheapest two bedroom cupboard flat is over £200k so most households require two working parents to make the numbers work.

Cheapest place I can see on the market that you could realistically childmind from in catchment is £320k. I can't see anything immediately for rent under £1500, which is crazy money. Obviously you could live further out but that's only an option if you don't have children of your own to get to the school/pick up or they somehow got a place out of catchment (ha, good luck with that!)

samsam

If you stopped cb in favour of free childcare firstly it wouldn't be enough because a lot don't receive it anymore. Secondly, the children who don't need childcare would lose out.
It is the dc of a parent not working or receiving cc who need cb.

I'd lose out there too- I work full time, look after my own children (do wouldn't benefit from the free childcare) and now I wouldn't get child benefit either. Royally screwed

Socially - the current child maintenance system is awful and needs serious work. Single parents shouldn't be fitting the bill alone and it's terrible that so many currently do. I still think that sibgle parents would better off if housing wasn't so crazy expensive!

In Sydney, Australia childminders fees used to be regulated by local councils who set them to ridiculously low amounts. Not surprisingly, they started finding that noone wanted to do it. They deregulated fees and attracted a few but now, in areas with expensive property prices which is nearly everywhere, they are almost as expensive as a center, sometimes more. I've heard the going rate is about $12-15 an hour now in the inner suburbs with 8-10 hours minimum each day.