Childcare subsidies should be repaid in the same way as student loans

[howabout]

(A couple of other threads discussing the economics of working while raising a family. Also in light of the extension of free childcare for working second earners.)

It seems fairly universally accepted that stepping out of the workplace in favour of childcare for any significant length of time has a long term financial consequence. However tax reliefs and subsidised childcare tilt the economic balance even further in favour of those who need childcare to maintain their job. Student fees and loans were introduced as the majority felt graduates disproportionately benefited from their education. Therefore as childcare costs are only "unaffordable" over the short term and not over a working lifetime I propose they should be repaid via the tax system in the same way as student loans.

I am interested in how others feel about this.

Ptolmey, so you'd be okay with me taking my son into lectures them, disturbing other students that are being funded partially by the taxpayer?

That works for me

No, I think you should do your lectures when you haven't got a small child to provide for, or pay for your own childcare. Shocking opinion, I know.

Most 30 something's in my office haven't payed back there student loans back yet, what makes you think that the system you propose would be sucessfull in getting the money back?

And... I pay tax right now and will in the future. So in many ways I have already payed for any childcare I may use, and will pay again.

Ptolmey so anyone who gets pregnant at university should drop out? Or people who decide they'd like to retrain shouldn't because they have kids? Piss off. If pregnant students dropped out think how many would have to claim benefits, if no one was allowed to retrain think how much the economy would lose.

Sounds like you're just trying to force your morals on others.

I think what OP means by having 'paid more tax' isn't about income. Doesn't mean OP was a high earner just that she paid her 20% tax for all the while she was earning then took X amount off with children. She was saying that a lot of parents pay 20% tax and then get % back with tax credits so in effect they pay less as a % of their wage than other tax payers. That is what I took it to mean not that the OP was on a higher rate. Tho I could be mistaken?!

Short term childcare help can result in longer term savings though if it helps people into work or better paid jobs. Surely reducing unemployment and benefit dependency is a good thing. It's not a simple case of paying someone's nursery bill when you look at the bigger picture. Ideally everyone would get a good education, a good job, DH/DW, 2.4 children and a dog etc but life isn't like that always. I am so grateful for the help that I received after I left ex DP as it probably saved my life literally, being able to support myself and DS and not go back to him.

Pot kettle black there lashes?

I'm not forcing anything on anyone, I'm expressing an opinion that I don't think the time to be studying is when you have a baby or small child. Or if you're already studying, then that's not the time to get pregnant seeing as you have chosen to conceive when you can't afford a child despite there being free contraception available.

Clearly though, expecting people to support their own children unless they have fallen on unexpected hard times after having them is a concept that's lost on many people.

Would cost too much to administer. KISS - scrap all child related benefits altogether, for children born after a date in the future (ie in a years time) Everyone supports their own "new" children (disclaimer - except disabled children, who should get lots more support than they do now)

Terry I stated several times in that thread that I wasn't forcing my opinion and I dont go around telling people who disagree with me their choices are wrong.

Ptolmey, not every pregnancy is planned. Do you think students should never have sex? Contraception doesn't work 100%.

Those retraining are trying to make sure they can support themselves better, surely it's reasonable to help them do that?

You were on that thread complaining about people getting mardy with you lashes, and i clicked on another thread and there you were saying the same thing.

Yet when someone says something you don't like here you are telling them to piss off.

Not that I agree with Ptolemy. I actually agree with you on this point.

Surely it's got to be better for the child, the mother and the economy as a whole not to force people off university courses because they fall pregnant.

Terry, I personally found the holier than thou "well don't get pregnant at university" attitude ignorant and piss off worthy.

I haven't personally insulted the poster like people personally insulted me.

I'm aware some pregnancies are unplanned, my first was. That didn't mean that I felt others should pay for me and my child.

Babies change things, and they need to be paid for. If people fall pregnant while studying, then I agree it seems a bit of a waste to stop a course halfway through, but I can't see any reason why people shouldn't be expected to pay back the money that their choices have cost the state.

People in the workplace of whatever sex add to the GNP and pay national insurance/tax which increases the national pot more than the childcare subsidy.
There are lots of good reasons to be a SAHP in terms of the individual family but as a member of the nation you put more into the pot if you are working. Hence the government would like to have as many people working and paying in as possible.
OP your argument that you paid more tax before becoming a SAHP isn't valid: you are in a very small minority and as a SAHP don't need childcare anyway. It's like saying people who need the NHS should pay back the cost of treatment because some people can afford to go private and therefore don't get the benefit of a free health system.

Ptolemy they do pay it back. In tax when they work.

Im not sure that you really understand OP that when people go out to work they get a wage in exchange for providing a service and paying tax.
Tax that goes back into the pot to pay for your DC school, GP services etc.
It seems many SAHM seem to think that WOH is just one long jolly.
You give up paid work then you don't get paid - stop being envious of those who do WOH- they are keeping this country going
Sick to death of the insular, petty minded spite of some SAHM who seem to think the world owes them everything .
You dont need CC, stop mithering on at those who do and provide services( gp, teacher) to you and pay taxes for services that you benefit from.
God that felt good !

You called other working mothers selfish lashes, so you are displaying the exact same holier than thou attitude you feel others are displaying here.

Then went on another thread to complain when it didn't go down too well.

I didn't complain just told the OP not to expect people to agree because I got insulted for it.

And I didn't actually, I said working when you don't need to when you have kids is selfish, and I realised that sounded judgemental which wasn't my intention and corrected it to "I think it's a selfish decision but I'm not saying they are selfish people". Not the same thing as saying "working mothers are selfish"

What is the definition of "don't need to " though Lashes ?
Finances ?
I work for my mental health and because I enjoy it and I want a decent pension in my old age.
I stash the money away in a savings account for my DC later in life.
When they were little I worked PT and we didn't need CC - still judging me ???

There are so many permutations of how to bring up DC - judging others just makes you stand out as narrow minded and unable to understand that the lives of others ,their needs and wants are different to yours.
You can stand their judging because your parents are supporting you - if you didn't have that then you would need to just get on and provide for your child .

there

I still don't think it's judgemental to have the thought "that's a weird thing to do, I wouldn't do that"

but as a member of the nation you put more into the pot if you are working.
This isn't strictly true. I know of parents who work, pay no tax and receive tax credits etc therefore are net takers from the pot. And so they should. if you're on such shit money you can scarcely cover a childminder you should be given assistance to return to work if it's what you want. Being forced into SAHParenthood must be utterly soul destroying. I say that as a SAHM myself.

name not sure where you find all of these "insular, petty minded and spiteful" SAHMs (nice- BTW). For a start SAHP are relatively uncommon and just doing their best for their families.

If people want to have the other debate can they do it on the other thread instead of derailing this

Good grief please don't let lashes derail another entire thread!!!!!