to think it is an outrage that when I go back to work after a second baby it is CHEAPER for me to get a nanny to look after them both than put them the nursery up the road!!

[sophiebbb]

I told my dad that the other day and he was flabberghasted.....

PS I live in London

I would expect to pay more for a nanny - one to two ratio with the same person looking after them consistently. Think you would be making the best choice. And they will come to your house in the morning, so no mad rush to get everyone sorted; also no pick up in the evening. You will be glad once you start doing it! My children are at two different minders at the moment and I dream of having a nanny!

Indeed - a nanny is a cost effective option for 2 children - even more so if you have 3.

On peanuts and monkeys, nowhere did I read sophiebbb as saying that we should bring down the cost of childcare by reducing the salaries of nursery workers or nannies. On the salaries front, it is all market forces anyway. If you pay peanuts in this market, you get nothing.

The point is that the government should give a bigger chunk of taxpayers' funds to subsidise childcare and working parents either to bring down the cost to the end user of childcare (ie parents) or to increase the affordability of childcare to parents through tax credits.

Yes I think YABU, and agree with chisigirl's post. Looking after children if done properly is very hard and sometimes monotonous and trying. It is also very fulifilling and for those who do it well a career choice for which I think they should be adequately remunerated

Why should taxpayers effectively make a direct transfer of money from one group of the population (parents) to give to another set (childcare workers)? Illogical, IMO.

If you can earn enough money to work AND pay your childcarer a decent wage, great. But I'm not sure why working parents feel they have a 'right' extra money than other childless workers. If I had no children, I would be very annoyed as it would effectively be a salary top-up for those with children.

I wish a nanny was cheaper than 2 children in nursery here (Cambridge)...make my life a lot easier.

chisigirl - you are right, in that the issue of subsidised childcare is an extraordinarily vexed and contraversial one.

In some countries and some places in time it is (has been) culturally the norm for babies and toddlers to be cared for by people other than their parents, and "childcare" is seen as the responsibility of society at large (like schooling or healthcare in the UK today).

In the UK we are quite divided on this issue. Some people think childcare should be paid for by society at large, others think that it is the entire responsibility of the child's parents, and others have hybrid feelings (often influenced by their personal circumstances ).

"Why should taxpayers effectively make a direct transfer of money from one group of the population (parents) to give to another set (childcare workers)?"

Because there is a good chance this would cost the state less in the long run than if lots of women give up their jobs because they can't afford to pay for childcare.

Currently I am struggling to maintain my job. If I leave there will be an immediate loss to the govt as I won't pay tax any more. All the money spent on training me will be (from an economical perspective) wasted, and as I have a PhD and professional qualifications this is quite a lot of money. And when my children grow up and I am no longer doing something useful, it will be extremely difficult for me to find another job that uses my talents to the full (and hence maximises their economic benefit to the nation). And I will have very little pension and be much more likely to end up partly reliant on the state.
I am only just breaking even by working and if I have another child I can't. A couple more grand of tax relief would make all the difference.

chisigirl: "Why should taxpayers effectively make a direct transfer of money from one group of the population (parents) to give to another set (childcare workers)? Illogical, IMO." I don't think that is how it works?

The subsidy about from taxpayers is a payment from the government to nurseries to reduce their high operating costs, not as a payment to childcare workers (though if nurseries felt they could increase their staff salaries I would not complain as the staff work very hard for relatively little). Or the subsidy can come indirectly by taxing working parents less (in the form of tax credits and childcare vouchers).

Your argument about why the childless should subsidise parents with taxpayers' money is a more cogent one. It is what we value as a society. There are clear benefits to encouraging a population to breed, if only to grow the next generation of tax payers. Most states subsidise parents to one extent or another. The fact that we even have state schools and playgrounds is one example. To take your views to the extreme, the only way non-parents would never have to subsidise parents is if there will be no state schools, no universities, no child facilities, social services, buspasses, free medical/dental care for children, other than those you pay market rates for.

Whether the subsidies should extend to childcare is a valid one. It already does to some extent. My view is it can go further. Make sure you vote in the next election!

Sorry I wasn't saying the Op was wanting childcare on the cheap,and I agree for most middle income earners who get no help towards nursery costs the charges are prohibitive. My point was off the thread really,just wonder how as a society we can pay nursery workers minimum wage and also have nurseries adhere to all the safety regulations etc(which of course are important) without paying for it.
Not sure what the answer is,really.

I was shocked at this too sophiebbb when I had two children.

But it wasn't long before the 3-years-old vouchers kicked in and the bills were massively reduced.

I think the problem really is that we see Nannies as a 'posh person's' option but actually they are not that pricey.

However, for me, the CONS of having a Nanny (finding a GOOD one/ the hassles of being an employer/ having to factor in Nanny's sick days and holidays/not mixing with similar-aged peers and structed learning activity) meant that paying (more expensive) nursery care was my preferred option.

Sorry I wasn't saying the Op was wanting childcare on the cheap,and I agree for most middle income earners who get no help towards nursery costs the charges are prohibitive. My point was off the thread really,just wonder how as a society we can pay nursery workers minimum wage and also have nurseries adhere to all the safety regulations etc(which of course are important) without paying for it.
Not sure what the answer is,really.

Kathy - you present the economic arguments for subsidised childcare.

However, we do not rely solely on economic arguments when choosing to support certain groups of the population. If we did, the state would not support for example children with SN or patients with terminal illnesses. We would just let them die ASAP.

dd3s nursery is £35 per day (approx 3.50 per h)

a nanny costs roguhtly £11 per hour so its stillk cheaper to send 2 to nursery in the west country

Blue shoes, I certainly did't mean to suggest that the state/society shouldn't support children. Of course 'we' as a society want to support parents and their offspring. Yes, I stand by the idea of giving children a good start in life, with good social services, schools and health care. But I have to say I draw the line at childcare. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but I view childcare as ultimately parents' responsibility. I view myself and my children's father as responsible for making sure they are well looked after. Most of the time, they are looked after by one of us. BUT at other times I CHOOSE to pay for someone else to look after them. I partly do this for selfish reasons as I like a little child-free time and I like having enough money to spend on 'extras' that my family wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. So because that's my choice, I don't expect the government to pay for that. When we decided to have children, we did so fully expecting that we would be able to raise them. Some parents CHOOSE to use grandparents or other families to help out and that's great. I don't have that option. Other families CHOOSE for one parent not to work and to rely on only one parent's income to support the entire family. Many families cut back (a lot!) on spending to allow them to do this. If someone's salary doesn't cover childcare costs, then does it make sense to pay a parent to go out to work? in my view, certainly not. In fact, that's why I think single parents should only be encouraged/expected to go out to work once their children are of school age. If you have children, I do think it's your responsibility to care for them, not the state's. I recognise that this is just my opinion of course. And I'll certainly be voting at the next election, as always.
ps: sorry for use of caps. can you tell this subject is a personal bugbear of mine?!

chisigirl - I don't think your view is "old fashioned" and I don't think you ought to think it is or ever qualify it as such when arguing your position.

Still cheaper to have 2 in nursery where I live. Plus you get all sorts of activities paid for at nursery which if done with a nanny you'd be paying again for lunch/art materials/travel/playgroup fees/preschool french lessons/yoga etc.

Around here I think 3 is the trigger point for a nanny being cheaper.

Sprogger, wow I feel quite proud of myself. According to you I view children as glorified pets and am demeaning about SAHPs as well! Well done, me. .

All right, I'll restate, no problem. Here goes: My argument (i) supports the view that children are glorified pets and (ii) infers something demeanding about SAHPs.

I'm still quite chuffed with myself.

sprogger - I don't think you are being very fair to chisigirl.

Nowhere did she say that the state shouldn't support parents with free schooling, healthcare, playgrounds, libraries etc etc. In no Western country does the government not provide massive support to parents.

The issue is whether that support should extend to care for children under school age.

"If someone's salary doesn't cover childcare costs, then does it make sense to pay a parent to go out to work? in my view, certainly not. "

That's a very short-term view though. If you look at the whole period in which someone is economically active, it doesn't make sense to force them out of their job because of a lack of support over the few years when they have childcare to pay. (Ideally, of course, we would all be able to drop out of our careers and then drop straight back in again a few years later but sadly in many jobs it doesn't work like that.)

What's more, if I have to give up my job because of childcare costs, the amount the govt will lose in tax from me will be greater than what I would have had in tax relief, so even in the short-term the government will be worse off. That is the nature of living in a very high-tax economy. If there was no such thing as tax your view would make more sense.

not sure where i stand on state nurseries but can't imagine they'd be wonderful environments for children to grow up in

chisigirl, you are perfectly entitled to your view . To me, to give up my childcare vouchers, surestart grant/free nursery places from 3, child benefit would not really impact much. I don't even qualify for tax credits. The next party you vote for should be looking to abolish all this.

Anna, I agree that the government does not purely consider economic arguments in its policies. In any case, there is the constitution/judiciary that protects individual rights that is a constraint against any ultra-right excesses of a government in situ.

However, I suspect that the Chancellor who has to balance the budget also has more than one eye on the economics of his policies. It is a question of how the government slices and dices the taxpayers' funds pie in accordance with what he perceives will win the most votes at the next election or do the greatest good (depending on your view of politicians).

If a policy (eg subsidising childcare) through a relatively small subsidy results in more women like kathy being able to work and contributing almost invariably more, much more, in their taxes which would otherwise be lost if they stayed at home (the penalty for a few years' off work frequently being a lifetime thereafter of poorly paid employment which does not fully utilise the woman's qualifications), I think that fact is a no brainer for subsidising childcare.

The million dollar question is to what extent?