starting to believe I'm the only person who feels this way....surely not!???!!!

[waitaminutenow]

Seriously I know this is going to cause havoc but I just have to know if anyone else thinks the same as me in regards to the government and childcare costs! Why do people feel that its the governments problem and that child care should be free? You either work and pay for child care or SAH...or don't have children if you can't afford one of those options?!It's coming across as a very harsh opinion in writing but I just don't get it tbh...

It's an acknowledgement that the whole of society benefits from having a next generation, and that by removing mothers parents from the workforce then you de-skill them, and remove them as taxpayers.

...as pp stated it is only for a few year...

I have been paying for childcare for the last 15 years and probably have another 5 to go. It never ends.

I don't feel de-skilled at all...I gave up a teaching position to be a sahm (a 30k wage :( ) granted I had the option but it was still a big adjustment.

Admittedly it is much cheaper now in term time when I just need before and after school care. Not so cheap in the holidays :0(

YANBU. My mum stayed at home for 10+ years with my sisters and me.

I work with people who knock at least a day a week off because of 'childcare'.

The argument re university fees and childcare fees the other day was spot on.

It's very straightforward.

Countries with high (at least at replacement) birth rates are less likely to be completely fucked by the problem of an aging population that they can't afford to support (Japan for example).

Countries with low birth rates have two choices. Either lots of immigration or strategies to increase the birth rate. In developed non-Catholic countries one of the more reliable ways to increase the birth rate is affordable childcare.

If people weren't de-skilled, or perceived to be so then SAHMs would be able to slip back into their careers 10 years down the line and earn the same wage. This doesn't often happen. I ended up doing a second degree to get back into work and it wasn't simple prejudice against mothers. I'd forgotten shit loads and the industry had moved on without me.

I worked with childcare development for a local authority, and I remember an ONS report which concluded that free, universal subsidised childcare would end up benefitting the exchequer to the tune of around £1bn net, as it would free up a huge chunk of labour who could start new businesses, retrain, etc., so the Government would benefit from resulting increases in revenue
That was a few years ago so the forecasts may have changed.

It is sound economic sense to subsidise childcare because it increases the economic output of the economy. And it also encourages couples to have children, which is a necessity for us not to die out as a society.

Childcare doesn't provide any direct financial benefit to an employee either, so the argument against tax credits (that it subsidises low pay, and that it encourages people to stick in low-paid, unrewarding jobs, because tax credit tapering means there is often little financial difference between doing 16 hours a week in a job with few responsibilities and 40+ hours in a full-time professional position) don't really apply either.

Only thing I would say is that childcare should be completely free up to quite high income levels. A professional worker on say £40k in London could find she has very little left after paying commuting, tax and childcare. I don't think that you get any childcare help on that wage, either.

I don't think most nurseries have HUGE profit margins tbh. Yes, the nursery worker's wage may be covered by fees of 1 child. But they also have to cover the rent, bills, food, insurance, administration... A lot are seriously worried that the 30 hours proposal will flip them from being just about profitable to loss-making...

Because even if they don't pay tax due to low wages it is cheaper than paying benefits and there is another person employed in the childcare industry - so helping with childcare creates jobs and removes barriers to working.

My friend owns two nurseries. They are vastly profitable.
Please stop imagining anything otherwise

YABU and I say that as someone who won't benefit from the additional free childcare.
I suspect it will mean more people will work longer hours so the economy will benefit, it will mostly likely mean people are claiming less in CTC and WTC. Also, why should these people not get help and I hate the 'well I got no help and struggled by', then surely you should want other people to get help!

Worked in nurseries. The profit I have seen on paper is incredible.

Very subsidised childcare will change the face of our society and workforce in my opinion
The sooner the better and I speak as someone who has all her children at school now and paid £2500+ pcm for nursery

I gave up a teaching position to be a sahm

Oh, good for you I do hope your teaching didn't involve correct usage of ellipsis, mind.

And what will you do when your kids are older? Or when your DH shags his secretary?

I gave up teaching to be a SAHM/carer. I have 2 kids with disabilities and have no choice due to a combination of their needs and lack of any suitable childcare - I get "paid" about £60 per week by the DWP for my pains. I've been out of the workforce for 12 years now and would be lucky if I could get a NMW job if I needed to get back into it. It would also need to be term time only.

You're coming across as very smug and goady about the choices that you have made regarding parenting and work.

We have a very good income between our two jobs, however in three years DS's fees have gone up exponentially, but our bloody wages haven't. I'm not expecting help other than the free 15 hours he's about to receive. But I think there should be a cap and more ways to encourage mothers back to work , should they want to go that way.

I'd like the country to provide working parents with free childcare for babies from one year to school age, and then provide heavily subsidised school holiday care until secondary age. I want that because I think there is value in having a society that supports it's population when it's doing something that it's automatically going to do. There will always be children, and IMO the best way to support families with children would be to ensure that they have the opportunity to provide a sufficient income for themselves.

If the government provides that, then there will be significantly less need for it to pay for people's food and clothes and bills, because they'd be able to (and expected to) do it for themselves.

On theory you are right. You have kids you should pay for them. However choldcare is so expensive many people can not work.

The government subsidises child care so that more people can return to work because it's good for the economy, and so that people can choose whether they go back or not.

All in all its good for the economy and country as a whole. I say that as someone who will not benefit under the new rules.

Well maybe because the government interferes in childcare, making it ridiculously expensive?

Free market or not, you can't just pick and choose.

It is about being a part of society, not every man for himself. A better educated and skilled society is more equal and sustainable in the long run. And that's better for all of us.
And that's why successive governments all talk the talk. They know it makes sense. however, as we know, they don't all actually deliver.

You either work and pay for child care or SAH...or don't have children if you can't afford one of those options?!It's coming across as a very harsh opinion in writing but I just don't get it tbh...

Your method means we have a society where you can only have children if you are very rich or you are living on benefits.

Which means you end up with privately educated people at the top taking top jobs and children who have no idea what work involves therefore not the right skills to get a job.

Then we have to encourage immigration so we (as a society) have to encourage doctors, nurses, plumbers etc etc from countries where it was possible to have an 'ordinary' job and have children.

Granted that is over simplistic but that is the general idea.

What on earth does it have to do with the government? Where do you think they get their money?

Childcare enables people to work and pay taxes. I think childcare for ONE child should be completely tax-deductible - and I also think travel to and from work should be as well. In Germany you can get tax relief for your season ticket - here, if your employer pays for it it's taxed as a benefit in kind! It's crazy.

In other countries childcare is much cheaper, much more readily available and it's normal to go back to work. I don't understand all the angst that goes on this country. Unless you are incapable of working, or you have a private income, you need to work to keep a roof over your head. Why should having kids change that?

I only had one child for many reasons, but one of them was the cost of childcare.