Subsidised childcare va care home fees

[MrBanana]

Discussing the introduction of 15 free hours for two year olds with friends (which I think is flawed but that’s not the point of this post). Friend 1 said childcare has to be made free. I disagree, there’s no political appetite for that. People of retirement age feel quite strongly that parents should be responsible for their own children. They’re the ones who vote in the largest numbers.

I don’t disagree, but I don’t agree that we somehow have it easier. We are told we have to be responsible for our own children. But we can’t now survive on one salary alone. Childcare is now more expensive and inadequately funded. Everyone I know with a two year old has seen their nursery bill increase in anticipation of the “free hours”
to compensate for it.

But then it struck me that these people are the same people who have “worked all their life” and don’t feel they should have to pay their care home fees and if they do, complain about it being unfair. Healthcare is still free to them, whereas we are finding it increasingly difficult to get a dentist for example.

It just struck me how hypocritical the whole argument is - we are supposed to be responsible for our children, by virtue of them being our children, whilst simultaneously working. But the current cohort of retirement age are complaining about, and want to avoid, being financially responsible for themselves! Most won’t have been paying taxes whilst receiving the benefits we’re now paying for childcare/dentistry etc.

Im not sure that’s the best structured argument but I hope I've made my point well enough to be understood.

I'm 68 and paying tax.

I'm absolutely pro free childcare because I see my daughter and son in law struggle.

And yes, all the savings that my late husband and I accrued are at risk from completely disappearing into my care, just as my mum and my MIL's did (including their houses)

I want at least some of my money and house value to go to my children. I'd be very comfortable with 50:50 to care and to inheritance.

If my DH and I had spent it on the way that many do, on new cars, on the house, on expensive holidays, I'd almost feel better.

In the meantime I'm helping with the cost of my DGDs' childcare.

Do you really need proportions and ratios explained?

There's a difference between work not paying and paying to work. One is possible to get through short term if there's an end date, one is only possible if you can survive on the other income.

Practically everyone is going to balance the cost of childcare against the lower income... which is likely to be the woman's one, especially for second and subsequent children because by being at home with the children you are directly saving the cost of childcare, balanced against evening and weekend earning potential

You are missing the points I am making, @Randomsabreur

Lots of people do balance the cost against losses now, but having a career break for 7 years or so means not only have they missed out on the salary they might have earned for those 7 years and their pension contributions, but also any increase in salary over that time. Then when they go back to work, lots of women end up in jobs where they are earning a lot less than they did pre children, let alone what they might have progressed to and may never get anywhere near their previous earning potential. That's what you really need to balance childcare costs against.

My other question was why is it still likely that women are earning less than our partners? Why are so many of us happy to go into this situation on the back foot?

Yes I would rather we lived in a society where men worked and earned enough to pay a mortgage while their wife stayed at home and raised the children.

Cost of living/childcare is making the situation worse. Assuming the family was surviving with say £10 a week for a rainy day during the unpaid bit of mat leave, when faced with losing that £10/week to pay to go to work it makes it hard to justify leaving the child to be worse off.

Now assume that the cost of working (childcare, travel) is £20/week if say the commute is a bit longer - train fares have gone up. But the "spare" money over both wages was £10, so now the family can't actually pay housing, food, utilities etc... this is where there is no ability to consider the future investment when you've probably already run down savings on mat leave. Going back earlier wouldn't help as childcare cost is generally higher for a younger child.

As for why women's wages are lower - I'd suggest sexism but haven't got an answer...

I reach retirement age this year (no way can I retire - self employed - staff depend on their jobs). The business has been going for more than 30 years so I've definitely paid my taxes and had no free child care, I spent 5 years as a SAHM but, even then I did the occasional PT work for my DH's employer.
I feel I've contributed to my retirement pot so I will be claiming my government pension.
I've told my DC to leave my allergy food lying around if dementia sets in because I don't want them paying out for me like we did for their DGM.

But the current cohort of retirement age are complaining about, and want to avoid, being financially responsible for themselves!

Based no evidence whatsoever. Well done you, @MrBanana . You wanted a structured argument and threw rule 101 out of the window. Sigh. I blame the teachers.

Oh, and yes, you are moaning. And generalising inappropriately.

I wouldn't, @DragonFly98, I'm really glad that my children were raised by both their parents equally (we both went part time to do our fair share of the childcare), and that now they're grown up I've got a satisfying, decently paid job with good pension provision and I can spend my own money on whatever I want, whenever I want.

Well no, I doubt it would work. I wouldn't vote for it. But I don't fret that my taxes might end up funding others.

Either we have a system where people are supported when vulnerable or it's everyone for themselves. Under the current system there will be net winners and losers, but if everyone paid for everything for which they and only they saw benefit I think we would all be much worse off.

I would prefer taxes to rise, and for every adult to be liable (not just those in work), with exemptions for those in education, over retirement age or unable to work because of illness or caring for a sick or disabled child or relative. That way, everyone would be supported when above and below working age, health, education, childcare and elder care would be free, and it wouldn't fall to workers to subsidise those who choose not to work.

But I don't fret that my taxes might end up funding others.

I think most buy into the safety net but something is getting lost where people are feeling like there is no help for them.

I would prefer taxes to rise, and for every adult to be liable (not just those in work), with exemptions for those in education, over retirement age or unable to work because of illness or caring for a sick or disabled child or relative.

You would levy more tax on workers?

As who are the non workers that aren't in education, over retirement age or unable to work because of illness or caring for a sick or disabled child or relative?

Not sure what generation you are talking about but yes when I was growing up in the 50s we did at one time live on one salary my dads but that salary was only enough for my mum, my older sister and myself due to the fact my dad worked 3 jobs 18 hours a day 6 days a week, we never saw him he was either at work or in bed asleep, my mum was nursing my nan in the front room of our council house so she did not work until nan died, when she did we had another sister who was two, in order for mum to work so my dad could drop one of his jobs my little sister went to a child minder, every day my sister and myself (9 and 11) would pick her up after school and look after her until mum came home from work I had a few friends who had to do the same, I don't think that would be allowed now would it.?

As for paying for care homes, DH and I have made arrangements, however it is not inevitable or mandatory that we will need to go into one, none of the older generation in my family my grandparents, or my parents needed to go into one same with my DHs grandparents and parents. If we don't of course the money we have when we die to go to my son and his family

As who are the non workers that aren't in education, over retirement age or unable to work because of illness or caring for a sick or disabled child or relative?

Me! Although I am doing another degree part time but thats mostly for fun because I already have two. I know plenty tbh. Around here it's common for men to work either abroad or offshore and for women not to work at all. The exercise class I go to is full of women who could be earning decent money but aren't, ex social workers, teachers, civil servants and accountants for example.

Drives my Civil Service ex-boss up the wall. He's always been a stick not a carrot type of guy though. If he was running the country, I'd apparently have to chose between returning to work full time or repaying the 2 degrees worth of tuition that the tax payer kindly paid for (with interest obviously).

So what would you be taxed on?

So what would you be taxed on?

Haven't a clue. Tax dh twice? (I'd probably divorce him) Savings?

I presume the poster who suggested it must have some ideas.

Oh no, totally disagree. Regressive working-age-only taxation is unlikely to solve the conundrum of how to encourage economic activity.

With the levels of wealth disparity we have in this country I'm very up for a wealth tax instead. Fewer unintended consequences - those with assets pay; those without assets don't. I'd probably go for a relatively high threshold, especially to start with, rather than something like Norway's with a much lower starting threshold.

Lots of questions in it - do you stop taxing estates and tax the recipients of inheritance for their windfall directly instead? Do
you consider global or just UK assets? But given the generational shift in (mainly but not solely property) wealth, the demographics of landlords, the concentration of wealth (10% of individuals hold nearly half of all the wealth) plus our employment challenges, I'd say we're ripe for a shift in the individual tax burden from work to wealth.

Oh no, totally disagree. Regressive working-age-only taxation is unlikely to solve the conundrum of how to encourage economic activity.

This suggests that wealthy pensioners get away scot free.... if you have a state paid index linked pension of £60K pa (which my DF has) why should you not pay tax on it? What makes you better than the father of 2 pre school DC whose wife is a SAHM and who loses their child benefit whilst the pensioner already gets winter fuel allowance? Especially as the pensioner might well have a mortgage free home whilst the dad of 2 is probably paying high interest or rent?

BBC website today was full of pensioners complaining that the personal allowance freeze combined with the increase in state pension meant that they had to pay tax on their pension and whinging that they didn't benefit from the cut in NIC - because pension income is basically taxed at a lower rate than earned income due to the impact of NIC

I'm not sure you read my post fully - or at all beyond the first paragraph? My suggestion would see the father of two pay less, and the asset rich pensioner pay more. What exactly are you criticising? And what demographic do you think I'm in when you say "what makes you better than"?

And I should have been clearer - I wouldn't abolish income tax altogether, but rather than raise IT I'd probably decrease it for basic rate taxpayers in particular, and shift some of the burden to wealth.

Which the statistics suggest is disproportionately concentrated in increasingly older demographics, so I don't think those wealthy pensioners would get off scot-free either way. In fact, while poorer pensioners would likely be unaffected, the pension- and asset-rich would likely take an increased hit.

I should be very clear that I expect to be one of those pensioners, and I would probably be hit by a wealth tax as things stand... and that's as it should be. But I'd like to see a shift away from taxing income - and therefore largely taxing work - as our default.

Thank you @Oldsu you have summed up how the real world are !

It absolutely IS ageism though. Try replacing ‘older people’ with ‘gay people’ or ‘disabled people’. Older people are not a monolith - come to that, neither are younger people.
But the current cohort of retirement age are complaining about, and want to avoid, being financially responsible for themselves! Most won’t have been paying taxes whilst receiving the benefits we’re now paying for childcare/dentistry etc every retired person I know is financially responsible for themselves. All of them have paid taxes for over 40 years, and don’t receive benefits. In fact, all of us still pay tax as our private pensions take us slightly over the personal tax allowance. Dentist costs aren’t free for pensioners.

Why is it not OK for her to @ you when you're doing it to her?

While there are some valid points on here I find they’re undermined by the fact it’s essentially yet another ‘pensioner bashing’ thread. It seems that some of today’s younger generation are fundamentally unaware of what life in general was like for previous generations to an extent that would be laughable were it not so offensive. Thanks to the PPs who’ve tried to explain but I suspect it falls on deaf ears.

@ilovesooty after I recognised the poster I asked them to stop & did the same. I don’t see any value in debating with a certain style of posters. Is that ok with you?

When I started work in 1979 my salary was £3000 a year and I was a graduate living in London so it included London weighting .I think that is equivalent to about £15000 today.