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.

Ok - point taken.

It’s such a frustrating attitude though. Immigration is something else I could talk about, but won’t!

Using higher education to support your argument is an odd choice, given that people of retirement age would have benefited from free higher education AND student grants to support their living expenses and now it’s a huge expense (my own student debt was £40k).

I think one thing that often isn't mentioned is that those over 60 and certainly over 70 (and I'm 62) were very much fed the idea by governments that NI was for state pension and healthcare, and was described as'your stamp' many felt it was like an individual insurance kind of thing- the reality is it is nothing of the sort and isn't ringfenced either- it's just another tax. People also forget employers pay into this too at roughly the same level. The only difference being that how much you get depends on how many years 'stamps' you have. That's why many older people can't get their heads around the fact that it's called 'a benefit' albeit a contributory one. Personally I think there has been far too much focus on pensioners in recent years, most of whom are securely housed one way or another- and many on my Facebook who seem to have wall to wall holidays- and not enough focus on young and middle aged people and families still working, paying rent - often huge in Private sector , plus colossal childcare bills. I see few comments by pensioners on Twitter that aren't about the 'what has he done for pensioners etc' - very little about anyone else - despite the fact they are getting rises with inflation and not actually working. How do they think many still working feel about being on similar money to 15 to 20 years ago with house prices that have rocketed , bills as they are etc. I'm not ageist as I'm almost in that age group myself but there is some extremely 'don't give a shit about others' thinking going on -probably why they predominantly vote Tory and no doubt Reform too. (Apologies to the older non Tory's like myself)

When we lived in Denmark they have much higher tax levels (higher wages too) but they don't have NI or council tax either. They voluntarily can pay into schemes to boost any benefits due to unemployment or sickness and it's very much encouraged. Councils are funded out of general taxation. Childcare is hugely subsidised but not free and works out about £290 a month even with a baby. The upside is most couples with kids work and there is little need for constant benefit top ups because there are usually 2 incomes plus an awful lot of very good social housing at sensible money ( 2 and 3 bed flats, some townhouses) with balconies or patios in decent convenient areas. That's why despite having 44% tax , they have in my opinion a better life style. 2 incomes, higher wages, more already covered off from what they bring home, cheaper accommodation costs in many families and couples.

It isn’t really because until this century only about 10% of the population had the opportunity to access higher education. Graduates were very much an elite.

I personally think both childcare and residential old age care should be self funded. Probably care at home too but May’s dementia tax and the furore surrounding it put paid to that. My real bugbear is what a raw deal single parents get.

Having children is a choice. Getting older/becoming disabled isn't. If you want kids, you need to find a way to pay for them. Is it ideal? No, but that's life.

The difference right there is that you were able to buy a house on one relatively average wage back then. It absolutely is no longer possible even with lenders offering 5 times the annual salary of a prospective buyer. I am not trying to say it was easy back then and I was an older teen in the late 80s so remember how scary it was for people. However, house prices weren’t crazily expensive. No amount of savings on not buying lattes and tech (which are often arguments used agains the younger generations) can offset that.

I've always worked and paid taxes. I was a teacher until I retired. Now I pay income tax on my Teachers Pension. When my 3 x DC were nursery aged, there were no government free hours or subsidised hours. If you wanted your DC to go to nursery so you could work you paid the full price for all of them or you relied on a family member to help you out, or you did as I did sent first DC to nursery then had a second DC quickly and took first DC out of nursery whilst I was on mat leave. I stayed home for a year then went back to work and both DC had to go to nursery 3 days a week and my Mum looked after my DC 1 day a week and my sister looked after them another day and in return I had her 3 x DC every Saturdays so she could work then. And there were no UC top ups. It was you earned enough to look after yourself or you went without. All I got was child benefit because that was universal at the time. That's the only benefit I've ever claimed and I've paid tax all my life so when I get my state pension at 67 I think I'll have deserved it. Paying nursery fees is nothing new. What is newer is getting the government subsidising it.

This argument had been trotted out and refuted several times on this thread.

Am just saying that less people went into higher education so joined the workforce at a much younger age and so made contributions much younger than many nowadays…you read my comment out of context .Not hard to understand.
Yes agree the Uni fees are a pain but obviously further education for the masses these days had to be paid for .FE is a choice. My three children are affected by student loans , which goes back to why the majority of parents would rather their kids inherit ,rather than line the pockets of care home owners!Anyone frail enough to go into a care home will not be spending their money out of greed ,living the highlife it will be just to exist! Swings and roundabouts for all generations.
Also there were not free nursery hours for my children when they were pre school age, unless from very poor families ,certainly not for average earners .
You should be using up your negativity on the wealthy tax dodgers and second home owners who make it so hard for the younger generation to get on the property ladder !

There are generational wealth disparities. It's not ageist to compare outcomes for different generations.

When from 1973 to today did any political leader stand up and say "hey, you know, are you guys cool that we're going to need loads of immigration to keep the economy afloat if the birth rate keeps going like this?"

I genuinely don’t understand how people can’t work it out though. But look at Brexit I guess.

Depends what you are classifying as elderly
The average care home age is 86
An 86 year old would very likely have school age kids in the 80s

If someone 86 now had a kid at 30, they would have been 12 in 1980

I am mid 50’s and benefitted from no university fees (only loans for living costs) but have spent 50k on helping my DC at uni.

I didn’t get the long maternity pay and leave.

It’s easy to feel the generation or two before had it easier.

By 2025 they are expected to have ballooned to £135 billion, a figure £2 billion more than the combined day-to-day budgets for the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, Times analysis shows

The demographics changes are going to have huge ramifications but people blame those on the boats.

It’s easy to feel the generation or two before had it easier.

financially things have got worse though.

You don't choose to be born, though.

.FE is a choice.

Is it? My boss didn’t have a degree, I had to have one. People younger than me have to have a specific one.

No, life is all parts of the life cycle, from conception to death, and by definition includes reproduction.

Higher education is typically, around 3 years, include a levels and its 5.

The state pension age is currently 65 and set to increase to 67 by 2027. As the take up
of HE education increases, so does state pension age and life expectancy. So whilst you might have previously worked for a greater proportion of your lifetime it doesn’t actually equate to a greater length of time.

You do know this is arrant nonsense, don’t you? Why do people write such rubbish? I started work in the 1970s when the basic rate of income tax was 33%, NI was 9%. We were all paying the same rate as today’s higher rate workers.

For many if not most, having children is primal and essential, not an option.

The state pension age is currently 65 and set to increase to 67 by 2027.

The state pension age is 67 now.

The state pension age is currently 66, not 65, OP.

FE is a choice

Yes, but it’s getting harder to get a job without.

The kind of job my father got with A-levels, I needed a degree for. People coming in at entry level today need a Masters.

It’s a lazy way of filtering people out as for most jobs there isn’t a specific relevant degree / Masters, but employers are doing it, so what can you do?

You’re right. I can’t count!