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

bit of a sweping generalisation!why wouldn't state nursery be any good. still subject to OFSTED and national rules

yes just a gut reaction, not thought out at all

State nurseries are and can be great. Just do your due diligence beforehand.

Anna - you're right, I am just presenting the economic arguments, because I want to convince Chisigirl that subsidising childcare more makes economic sense .

I don't have a view on whether more people should be working or at home with children - ideally I would like genuine choice to exist for more people to do either.

there are good nurseries and there are bad nurseries- as a parent you need to visit ask questions, read up

Kathyis6incheshigh, I take your points but I suppose I don't believe that if someone has children, that they should expect to be able to look after children without it having any negative impact on your career. (I totally agree with you, in many careers, it's just not realistic.)

Regarding the tax issue: If you actually cannot cover childcare costs with your salary (I mean parents in general, not you in particular) then I don't think that job can be incurring enough tax to more than offset the childcare cost. (Or am I missing something?

Actually, I'm slowly coming round to the subsidised childcare argument. I used to think it was unvariably unfair to those families where one parent chose to SAH (usually a woman). But actually, given the horrendous taxation levels in Western economies, since most of a second earner's income ends up in the hands of the government anyway, more fool the women that choose to carry on working just to contribute to the common good - and let the SAHMs enjoy the economic benefits of all those other women contributing to the common good...

Just another viewpoint.

Kathy - see my post below.

Subsidising childcare makes economic sense for society as a whole. But does it really for the individual?

It's often not that clear cut.

so true, Anna. If one takes a broader view of things, subsidised childcare is win-win, more money for the pot. Not just for SAHMs, but for the general population. God I hope more money goes into SN.

essentially via taxation etc i contribute to services i don't directly utilise eg day centres, meals on wheels etc. however someone with no children pays taxes that contribute to state schools. the wider perspective is that a liberal society sets out services it will provide and pay for and that cost is shared

Sprogger, um, nowhere have I stated that someone's career "should" suffer from having a career. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I did say that I think it's realistic that if you have a relatively demanding career, it will likely suffer if one parent takes time out to look after young children. This is just my strong feeling, based on personal experience in the workplace.

Regarding whether it is the mother or father's career which slows down/is put on hold, that's up to the family involved, surely?

I think that child care workers are already low paid and think they should have a fair pay and they are a business like any other so need to make profit. I don't think we should have state supported nurseries as I think parents should be responsible for their choices in having children and what they can afford. I don't think institutionalised care should be the norm either.

oops, sorry that should have read (obviously) "from having children".

People always end up voting with their feet in the end, though.

I know plenty of very highly qualified women in France married to very highly paid men who have stopped working because the %age of their income that they actually took home after tax was so minute in comparison to what they were costing their employer and the effort they were required to put in that there was a real incentive disequilibrium.

Chisi - I am talking about situations where, by the time you have paid the costs of your working (mainly childcare and transport) and of course paid all your tax, you have nothing left from your salary. So you are effectively working for nothing or are even worse off than if you didn't work.

anna, sounds like the French tax system is a little illogical. Seems contradictory to encourage women to work on one hand with relatively inexpensive subsidised state nurseries available from a young age and then disincentivising women from working through the tax system.

What is the top rate of tax for a second income earner and what salary band of the first income earner that triggers that?

Yes, Kathyis6incheshigh, I realise that. I know the feeling well! At the risk of going on and on, that's precisely my point. I just don't see why (your previous arguments notwithstanding) society/taxpayers should take steps (ie subsidies) to alter that situation. You do see why, but I don't. Just a different viewpoint, eh?

And now I must DRAG myself away from this thread and go and do some work or I won't be able to pay my exorbitant childcare costs this week!

I agree that many times a second earner is not much better off. Also, I don't see how being dependant on 2 wages is a step forward. I have always thought that maybe an increase in child benefit is a good idea and then the parents can choose whether to use the money towards nursery or to help SAH. That way people are not as resentful (eg a WOHM who wants to SAH but can't or a SAHM who wants to work but can't).

blueshoes - you are asking questions based on the UK taxation system - so it doesn't work like that - but as a rough guide, if you have a very high earning DH, the calculation is (very approximately)

Cost of employee to employer - 150
Gross salary - 100
Salary net of social security - 80
Salary net of tax - 38

Deduct costs of working (childcare, transport) and the relationship between what you cost your employer and what you take home is difficult to manage...

oh, and thanks, Anna8888!

Because the state will get way, way more out of me if it lets me carry on working Chisi! If I leave work they will get nothing now and a lot less in future! Leaving what I want out of it, how can that be better for them and for my fellow taxpayers?

To put it another way, if the state's desired outcome is to maximise the amount of tax they get, for which they need more people to be in work, then it doesn't make sense to have a system which deters people from working. If people can't afford to work who would like to it basically means the system is broken - exactly as with certain areas of the benefit system. This isn't about taxpayers having to fork out to subsidise my choices, it's about the state managing to create a system which may effectively stop me being a taxpayer. Which is nuts from the economic point of view!

I think that other (state-controlled) factors come into play in a woman's decision to work.

Despite what I have said below, I also know women here in France who continue to work (in demanding jobs) for many years for very little because divorce settlements here are so unfavourable to SAHMs. So that in itself provides an incentive to women to work (to fund the state) as a safeguard. Which personally I think is a terrible situation for women - they end up working terribly hard for no financial gain and don't see their children just in case their marriage breaks down.

And marriages often do break down under the strain of it all.

To me though, it is crazy to pay someone to look after my kids while I go out and earn money to pay them! (and I used to do it!) Especially if I am not much better off for doing so. We should stop thinking about the government (and the profit makers, think how much the government waste anyway on wars, wallpaper for their flats, second homes, silly schemes that don't work etc) and think about ourselves, what do we want? Do we want time or to sell our time to others.