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!

[quote Topseyt]@gardeninggirl68 Those are your words, not mine.

I agree with OP that subsidised and affordable childcare would be of great benefit to the country and to many working families. I wouldn't have had to leave my career if it had been available, and would therefore have paid much more tax over the years when I was forced to be a SAHM for financial reasons.

"Don't have children if you can't afford them" is sanctimonious virtue signalling, usually by those from fairly comfortable and well off backgrounds.[/quote]
not me..average,not well off ...i struggled on (5 kids) but got through those stages....not up for paying for others really thanks

From a quick google and mental maths, probably around 6% of women will earn >£50k.

Unpaid labour ? That is their choice. They aren't having children so that the children can grow up and pay tax! They are having kids because they want to do so. And it's their right to do so. Just not to ask for more subsidy
Ah no, it does not work like that unfortunately, you see - you can't jump from economic to emotional arguments when it is more suitable.
Yes, it is their choice. But it is a choice in the same way as "why do people even choose to become a doctor, haven't they seen the junior doctors' salaries and workload! Everyone of them should become an accountant instead". The society won't function if everyone makes the "rational" choice. Not too dissimilar to the prisoner's dilemma.

So disgusted that so many on here think that only the rich should have children, or that it's a lifestyle choice that should be funded like an expensive car.

People with no money have an equal right to a family life. You can't measure the worth of a child, or the value of a parent, in pound coins. It's possible to have love and kindness in droves and no money, just as it is possible to have shit loads of money and be a horrible parent.

And childcare is not there to fund people's 'choices'. It more than earns its keep for society and for the economy: it keeps women in work and keeps children out of poverty, it stops companies losing talented employees, it has knock-on effects for population management in an ageing society, and it earns its keep in taxes and family spending power.

So YANB. Poorly-funded childcare is short-sighted and contributes to economic and social and gender inequality.

[quote Sleeplessem]@Autumndays123 isn’t that quite a circular argument, where do you draw the line?

Every choice you make that could remotely affect your health is a lifestyle choice, yet the nhs is a tax funded service. Should smokers not receive healthcare? The overweight? After all aren’t these ‘lifestyle choices too’
Would you say the same for primary schools? (It’s an extension of the same argument as for nurseries).
Should mothers get no maternity pay as that too surely is a lifestyle choice?[/quote]
That is completely different. People who actively make the decision to have children knowing that they cannot afford them and then complain they don't get enough from the government are so unbelievably selfish and irresponsible.

I know several couples who chose not to have children because they cannot afford it. Interestingly, perhaps if they weren't paying so much in tax for the parents who decide to have 3/4/5 children and take in government benefits, they would be able to have one of their own.

It's like the thread on here the other day where a woman with 3 kids married a man with 3 kids, had another and then wanted to know why her benefits weren't stretching far.

YABVU

Pay for your own childcare for the children you chose to have.

Nobody is saying the poor shouldn't have children FFS! The fact that UC claimants get further help with childcare is right and as it should.

If you are earning enough to pay 40% tax, then the government shouldn't be subsidising you any further

@Cwenthryth

From a quick google and mental maths, probably around 6% of women will earn >£50k.

I think quite a good % of women on 50K will be out of the usual reproductive age as well. Having children is nearly always a high risk option for a woman, especially given that this option has a limited shelf life. Very, very few can do it all completely on their own. The ultimate reliance is either on the state (in developed economies), on the wider family (in less developed economies), or on the second parent (and this is again a very complicated can of worms, spanning issues from domestic abuse to the alimony legislation in the country - for example, it is a secure option in the US, not so in the UK).

If you can't afford them, don't have them.

This is a lifestyle choice
You chose to have children
You complaining about costs
Why is it up to the tax payer to fund your childcare because that's what you are asking or perhaps you think the staff at the child care facility should have more hours and a cut in wages to make the cost cheaper for you ?

Its not a saying I'm fond of but if you breed them then feed them( and suck up nursery costs)

@Pythonista

It is a fundamental part of equality and feminism to have affordable childcare.

So to facilitate women's choices, other women have to pay more? Cool.

Yup that’s right. There has been a big push for decades now to have more women in STEM careers and sitting on management boards and in order we need to address the barriers that they face - this is a pretty damn big one. If their career prospects are cut off at earlier stages because of childcare then it hurts us all. Studies have shown that having more female bankers promotes greater overall stability and economic prosperity for everyone.

I thought women would be more supportive of other women.

This thread has surprised me.

So? I'm talking about childfree single people not people with children! Single parent or both

Just out of interest. So many people say here "don't have them if you can't afford them" - where's the cut-off point at which you'd say "yep, this one - she's able to afford them".
Give me a hard number per annum please?

So disgusted that so many on here think that only the rich should have children, or that it's a lifestyle choice that should be funded like an expensive car.

Actually, no one said either of those things.

Society changes with every generation. We compare what has gone before with our own circumstances.
Some changes work better than others for different families.

As an overall observation on current circumstances, I would say it works better for women to have their babies young.
Marriages do not seem to last the distance these days, so no point in relying on the male breadwinner model.
People are living longer so will be working much longer.

Best to have your babies young, before you are on the career ladder. Climb on that once your children are at school. The old model of concentrating on career in your ‘20’s would seem to be a bad choice.
Disappointment from every quarter if you do that.
You will also be more fertile in your ‘20’s so a much better chance of having the family you wish for without medical intervention.

Women seem to be having babies later and later, they then resent the effect on their career and also as we see here the cost in childcare. The grandparents are too old to provide the expected childcare. Older parents then feel burnt out juggling work and childcare and resenting the effect on their lifestyle.

I really do think a return to starting your family younger would be a better choice for most women. Start your career after the children are at school.

@Shoxfordian

Can there also be a Chanel handbag subsidy? I would like one but can’t afford it so I don’t have one

Yeah because that's the same

Yup that’s right. There has been a big push for decades now to have more women in STEM careers and sitting on management boards and in order we need to address the barriers that they face - this is a pretty damn big one. If their career prospects are cut off at earlier stages because of childcare then it hurts us all. Studies have shown that having more female bankers promotes greater overall stability and economic prosperity for everyone

So we subsidise childcare for high earners? Well that is all kind of fucked up

@LadyCampanulaTottington

I’m afraid I’m in the camp of “if you can’t afford them, don’t have them” or have one parent stay at home.

Exactly this. Don't be ridiculous OP - it's not an obligation to have children you chose to have them.

I think quite a good % of women on 50K will be out of the usual reproductive age as well.
Good point. I am a woman of (just about!) child bearing age on >£50k, but I wouldn’t be earning this much had I had children.

Children are not cars or handbags ffs, they are not luxury items. How horribly fucking elitist to say only rich people should have children.

I agree with you op. I’m Spanish and my sister pays around £300/month for the childcare of her son. The childcare is based on her earnings so they do pay more or less depending on salary.

In the uk what is even worse is that the money doesn’t directly go to the workers , they are so badly paid that many of them leave their jobs because they can’t afford it
as someone has said… someone that has a child and who has to give up their career results in less taxes being paid to the government … if childcare was cheaper then many people would work more hours …

“If you can’t afford it don’t have them” whilst it can be true , we As a country subsidise so many other things ..

I honestly feel sick that people think things like 'breed them then feed them and suck up the costs'. It's abhorrent.

Why do people think government can pay for everything? There isn't endless money to go round and perhaps issues like poverty, collapsing NHS are bigger issues than childcare costs.