To think we should be protesting

[Jessieabs]

For affordable childcare.

Why are we letting the government get away with the absolute joke that is childcare in the U.K.

Over 2k per month to send 2 kids to nursery seems like madness! There should absolutely be reform to this crazy state that we’re in. Surely a huge majority of the voting population have children/have grandchildren or plan to have children, but this issue is rarely talked about at election time!

@Delatron

Some childless women on here (why would you visit a parenting site when you have such distain for mothers?) probably don’t realise how they are facing discrimination without even having children.

Potential employees weighing up whether you’ll disappear off and have children soon so should they give the job to the male candidate... should they promote you and risk you leaving to have children etc.

And yes society absolutely loses out as does the economy when thousands of women are priced out of the workforce due to childcare costs.

Very narrow minded views on here.

It’s perfectly possible to help women have successful careers with children. By subsiding childcare and providing shared parental leave. Other countries manage it perfectly well.

I have indeed been judged by being child bearing age. I know employers can't ask the family situation but I happily volunteer the information.

I'm menopause age now so it matters less

Several things need to change.
Wages need to be reasonable. It's not ok that so many people are paid so poorly that they can only manage with government help.
House prices are ridiculous and so a mortgage takes a whole salary on its own!
But - businesses paying staff proper living wages means their costs are higher so they will charge more for their products/services.
House prices - nobody wants to see their own house worth far less than they paid for it.

So how do we solve the problem? How do we ensure everyone gets a realistic wage that they can live on, while not paying more for goods and services, and have an affordable home while not seeing a reduction in value, have a supportive state system while not paying more in taxes.

People aren't generally willing to give personally for the greater good.

The OP is earning between 50k and 150k to be paying 40% tax, sorry but that wage bracket can afford childcare even at 2k a month. Then there's will be her partner's salary (if she has one) or maintenance payments from him to put towards childcare.
She isn't by any means struggling.

Now, someone on NMW paying childcare for 2 kids is struggling.

If anything make childcare means tested. Once earnings is above X amount no help or free hours given

@BreadPita

What do you think a society would be like, filled, literally filled, with people who want children and can't have them?

People are arguing for taxes not being raised to subsidise childcare. There would have to be a serious reduction in living standard before most people will decide not to have children. People who are struggling already get assistance. I don't see the point of subsidising childcare further, so that people who can already afford childcare can save a bit more money at the expense of people who have chosen not to have children.
Because this is the crux of the argument. People who need childcare will either pay through taxes or pay directly (the government can't magically reduce the costs of actual provision).
This just means that people who do not have kids will be throwing more money into the pot so that people with kids can pay a little less.

Hm, no, multiple people on this thread have said don't have children if you can't afford them.

Most people can't afford children without subsidy.

I agree we need good, subsidised childcare.

Many responses here from people who haven't thought this through. Proper childcare = more parents able to work = less childhood poverty. Better mental health for the parent/s (working gives routine, community, support from colleagues and pride) in turn leads to lesser need for costly medical intervention.

Less childhood poverty = less problems as adolescents and adults which in turn creates a healthier society.

Additionally, parents being able to work due to their children having subsidised childcare creates children who turn into adults who see working as the norm.

I hope that makes sense as I typed in a rush but there are so many reasons for agreeing with this. I haven't even mentioned the impossibility of equality for women until childcare is more affordable.

@KellyABC but its because we fund these things already that we don't want higher taxes to fund childcare any further than already done especially for those on over £100 k as some want
As another pp no one here has had children so that they work and pay taxes , their child may never even do this
We have had them because we want them and we know the costs involved
Many of these 100 k people moaning and wanting the subsidies will go onto pay £10 k plus a year for schooling .
We do have help for lower earners and could be slightly increased for some middle earners, but no it shouldn't be subsidised for all no matter what their wage

@ItsAlwaysThere but we do have help for lower salaries
Those that earn large salaries can pay the childcare for a few years
Subsidising all childcare for all then means potentially higher taxes or knock on effects for the lower paid ? How does that help society as a whole , what it helps the rich save more ?

@Delatron

In Scandinavia I think they do shared parental leave? Something like 6 months each. Subsidised childcare so the women’s career doesn’t suffer basically. Society accepts men taking more time off though I suppose over there as it is the norm.

Why can’t we look at what other countries do well. And pretty much all of them (apart from the US) have better childcare provisions which makes it easier for women to carry on working. Why wouldn’t we want that? Rather than say ‘suck it up , if you can’t afford to have kids then don’t’

That’s not the issue. The issue is why do women in other countries have better provision? Why is there more equality?

Probably because they have considerably higher rates of income tax than we do and have much less need to spend on benefits than we do.

I don't see why tax payers should fund childcare

The birth rate is below replacement level last I checked. Less people is no bad thing environmentally, but an aging population brings its own issues, so a balance is needed.

@HalzTangz

The OP is earning between 50k and 150k to be paying 40% tax, sorry but that wage bracket can afford childcare even at 2k a month. Then there's will be her partner's salary (if she has one) or maintenance payments from him to put towards childcare. She isn't by any means struggling.

Now, someone on NMW paying childcare for 2 kids is struggling.

If anything make childcare means tested. Once earnings is above X amount no help or free hours given

So based on your logic tbe op is only entitled to pay pay and pay taxes and no get benefits from society. Someone on nmw can have as many kids as they want and the op should subsidise it without complaining at all. Damm rich (50k rich ha!) how dare they complain!

Ps. Someone that earns 100k doesn’t get the 30h.

*Hm, no, multiple people on this thread have said don't have children if you can't afford them.

Most people can't afford children without subsidy.*

The fact is that people do have them when they literally cannot afford them. These people are captured by the benefits system.
The OP seems to be about people who can afford childcare or a SAHP, but don't want to have to make that choice.
I think this idea is what irks people. Being able to have someone else take care of your child, so that you can spend your time in some other manner, has always been a luxury, rather than a right.

So based on your logic tbe op is only entitled to pay pay and pay taxes and no get benefits from society.

Apparently she should feel joy in knowing that she's contributing to the education of the next generation.

Of course it also goes toward educating her own children.

What ridiculous, short-sighted responses at the start of the thread. We need to encourage young families otherwise we are heading for a total population imbalance.

Working parents are penalized while lazy out of work so and so's on benefits are laughing all the way to the bank it's all wrong.

I'm not prepared to pay anymore. Sorry tough shit.

No one's saying you should pay more.

People are saying that the government should allocate taxes better and provide better services to the society as a result.

Other countries with the same tax brackets, VAT and property costs manage to provide decent healthcare, free or cheap childcare, free higher education. Those countries are richer, healthier and happier as a result. It can be done, but it's not something a UK Tory government will ever be interested in exploring.

@Morgan12

So the government have ensured that most families need two wages to just survive.

They then make childcare ridiculously expensive so that one parent (the mum!) needs to forfeit a career and quit or go part time.

Damn fucking right we should be protetsing this.

The government have completely killed family life and we sit and do nothing. We say nothing.

Then we have you lot on here who think it's okay.

I can only assume you are Tory supporters. Simple as that. And you are part of the problem.

@EileenGC

I'm not prepared to pay anymore. Sorry tough shit.

No one's saying you should pay more.

People are saying that the government should allocate taxes better and provide better services to the society as a result.

Other countries with the same tax brackets, VAT and property costs manage to provide decent healthcare, free or cheap childcare, free higher education. Those countries are richer, healthier and happier as a result. It can be done, but it's not something a UK Tory government will ever be interested in exploring.

Oh please you cannot be that naive! Of course it means tax increases, if that was the case than why do they need to raise income tax to pay more for social care. Come off it, im not stupid to fall for reallocate money bs!

[quote InTheNameOfAllThatIsHonest]**@Dreamstate* (I just re-read my post and realised it should have said that 'nobody* has so far managed to answer this point')[/quote]
Ah okay typos so easy to make.

But this is the crux of my point.

There is so empathy for us just demands to hand over more money to subsidise their life choices...really makes me angry the sheer entitlement and then the audacity to not even acknowledge that you are literally fucking over other people who they don't even subsidise!

@Dreamstate I'm not-naive enough to understand that what you're saying is the result of an incompetent government. People have just accepted it (no idea why) but it doesn't mean it's not possible. It just takes more capable leaders than the ones who've been in power lately.

I suspect it will be the generation after us who petition harder and get the subsidised childcare. Millennials always seem to have bad luck- surely we need another boomer generation to even things out so hopefully our kids will have free higher education, cheap childcare and higher wages. They might have to lend us money when we are on our crappy pensions!

Some of the posts here are shocking.

I'd be curious how many of the 'why should I pay for your family' posters expect taxpayers to fund their parents' social
care.

@MyothercarisaCozyCoupe

Some of the posts here are shocking.

I'd be curious how many of the 'why should I pay for your family' posters expect taxpayers to fund their parents' social
care.

If you bother reading the comments - we are paying for social care and pensions for the generation above. So it shouldn't be too much to expect that your children pay for ours. It's how it is,

It isn't the same as having to shell out to support higher earners' childcare

But my parents are both dead, so why should I pay for other people?

Of course I don't actually think this but it seems to be the basic logic of many posters here. If I don't directly benefit, why should I pay?

@Pythonista

It isn't the same as having to shell out to support higher earners' childcare

Why isn't it? Lots of wealthy people expect the State to provide/ contribute to their care.