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.

You're right ptolemy I should have dropped out the second I found out I was pregnant two years ago and be sat on my arse doing nothing and on benefits, rather than doing the last two years of uni and walking straight into a full time job where I am now paying taxes.

How silly and ambitious of me.

Nicky I've told people to take the argument to a different thread. It's hardly my fault someone decided to bring up an argument that had nothing to do with this thread here is it? If people want to discuss that, they can do it on another thread

Disconcerted I don't get how that works? The vast majority get more out of the system than they pay in

I agree, that's one reason why it's only an idle fantasy.

I wouldn't have unless I'd seen you complaining about everyone that disagreed with you on a separate thread.

And then doing the very thing you were complaining about on s third (this one)

So anyway yes I won't derail it any further.

I honestly can't face having that conversation again anyway.

"that's a weird thing to do, I wouldn't do that"
Goodness you sound very naïve.

I also WOH because my DH has MS - no one apart from his employer knows.
He could be unable to work at any time.
You wouldn't know that about us or about the person down the road who " selfishly " works fulltime
You dont know everything about people and the decisions they make or have to make .
Stop bloody judging !

Namechange can you take this to s different thread instead of derailing one that has nothing to do with this?

She is relying to a comment you made on this thread lashes.

What you need to realise is that although it might please you to think otherwise some of the comments you make are no different to the ones you are objecting to on here - they just affect you.

You cant police the threads Lashes
May be think about what you post in future !

I bloody hate the way SAHM and WOTH mothers behave towards one another. Can't we all just recognise that different models of parenting have value, and respect one another?Bringing up the next generation is a socially useful thing to do. Working is also a socially useful thing to do.

The tax system should recognise parenting, in my view. Childcare should be tax deductible (with a subsidy for the lowest paid, who won't be able to cover much at all from their tax) and a SAHP should be able to transfer their tax-free earnings threshold to the working parent.

Erm, YABVU.

Sounds like another idea to push women back into being good little housewives, so men can get jobs more easily.

Also loans are a slippery slope. Should benefits or NHS care become a repayable loan ?

Stop counting what tax you paid and what "benefits" other people get. That way leads to a breakup of society.

Only the rich pay out more than they take out over a lifetime, which is fair.

Most SAHP and WOHP have no beef with each other - Ive been both.
Its the" I don't need it" (CC) but" I dont want you to have it" (CC )posters who are stirring these debates.
I am a WOHM - never used CC and wholeheartedly support subsidising it for those who are working out of the home, providing services and paying tax.
We all parent whatever our employment status.

The thing with the op's proposal is that graduates are deemed to have benefitted from their education when they earn above a certain amount, around £21K. How would you deem parents to have benefitted? The most common thing to come up is pensions- people with an unbroken work record have a better pension entitlement- but if you began "repaying" CC subsidies at that point you would have the spectre of someone getting less pension despite having worked more-crazy.
I think it's fair enough for parents to make a contribution towards CC because they do benefit from working. But they do make a contribution don't they. I have friends who work 4 days a week and take home £40pw wages (with £80 CCT) after CC has been taken into account. To penalise them further would be outrageous.

They get a better pension entitlement because they have provided a service to society - I brought up my DC and have WOH as an XXX insert choice of service here.

whippy33, the OP did refer to herself as 'paying more tax than most pay in a working life', and said that she feels her 'short high contributing' career is seen as less worthwhile than the careers of those who work for longer but pay less text - so she described herself as a high earner.

I think sports people should repay the help they get if they hit the big time. Some seem to get alot of help with training costs, travel etc. Then you hear about some becoming millionaires and I have never heard of them paying anything back. Much more annoying than childcare in my opinion (but then I hate sport so I might be biased.)

Thank you for all the contributions. I am Scottish and so will happily survive on if needs be .

I wanted to clarify that I do not consider help with childcare costs within the tax credit system to be a subsidy which should be repaid. Marginal tax rates within the tax credits system are in excess of 70% and so any perceived benefit is more than paid for on receipt.

My issue arises because both DH and I went to university for free and received full maintenance grants. We had our last dc aged 43. Had we both remained in the workplace we would have claimed childcare vouchers and made use of any extension to "free childcare for double income working families". We would not have been expected to pay this back and we would not have needed this help. We would both be working alongside graduates paying marginal tax rates 9% above ours throughout their working lives.

As a graduate with a non-graduate brother who has always earned roughly the same as me I struggle with the argument that graduates disproportionately benefit from their education. I believe in the value of education for its own sake regardless of the contribution to earning potential.

Of course I value the services of those who work in health and education and whose salary is paid out of taxation. I just do not value their services more than someone working in health and education who does not benefit from child care vouchers or "free childcare for double income working families". I am also not sure I value teachers, nurses and doctors more than nursery assistants and care workers to the extent that current pay differentials imply but that is a different conversation.

All adults should get free child care for the equivalent of one child (or the result of one pregnancy so twins, triplets covered) until school age, and free aftercare/breakfast club until the child is 7. With obvious caveats for children with SN.

As it's all adults a family of 2 parents and 2 children would not pay childcare. As government would either be funding nursery places or providing nurseries the costs would be kept down a bit like the NHS negotiating prices for drugs / treatments.

But any more children you fund yourself. But I like the idea of being able to defer the payment and repaying through taxation of both parents, just because accidents happen.

I said 'equivalent of one child' at the top of the page because I think a couple could swap or share the equivalent out so if you split before baby is born the parent having parental responsibility could apply for 1/2 of the other parent's allowance. Or if you choose to be a SAHP for couple of years you might only use 50% of your allowance.

The student loans system is already a bit of a political disaster in the making, as the chances are that a significant chunk of the debt will end up being written off.

The chaos that would ensue if the same system were applied to childcare would be such that I don't think any government in its right mind would pursue it.

I think it would be difficult, and consequently expensive, to administer. Who pays it back? One parent, both parents? One parent in a single parent household, or NRP too? Is it shared equally between both parents, even if income is not? What if parents split?

Completely different situation to paying for one person's university education. And that is proving hard enough to recoup.

OP, doesn't the childcare voucher entitlement just depend on whether your employer has signed up to the scheme? You can pay 20 percent or 40 / 45 percent tax and claim the vouchers in agreement for 'sacrificing' some of your salary, NI contributions etc. If only one parent is working and their employer offers the scheme, they can still claim them (although this is about to change). What is it that you don't like about this scheme?

It is not that I don't like child care vouchers, I just feel it is an unnecessary tax subsidy available and of more value to relatively high earners. In a World where many graduates will pay extra tax throughout their working lives (especially in lower paid careers) and where tax credits to low paid workers (including many working in the care sector) are threatened with cuts I think these tax benefits are hard to justify.

Were I earning up to £150k with a partner earning a similar amount I would not expect my childcare costs to be subsidised through the tax system.

Your argument doesn't seem consistent, though - you say that graduates pay 'extra tax', but also that 'relatively high earners' (including, presumably, the same graduates who have to pay 'extra tax'!) - should not in your opinion be entitled to claim a bit of tax relief through childcare vouchers. It isn't clear - do you feel that these parents pay too much tax ('extra tax'), or too little (due to their 'tax benefits' from taking childcare vouchers)?

What has graduate/non-graduate status got to do with the point about childcare subsidy, really?
I say 'a bit of tax relief' because the vouchers only cover a part of childcare costs for most people; you can only claim a maximum of £243 a month tax-free. Yet they can make the difference, for many families, between a woman being able to afford to go back to work, or being forced to stay at home as her wages are outstripped by the cost of childcare.