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.

What free childcare? There's a one to two year waiting list everywhere round here. The 15 hours free childcare don't mean anything when there's no spaces.

Sorry it’s 67 - there’s talk to increase again I believe?

State pension age is 66 .

It’s also not “free” as I have said - every childcare provider I know raised their fees in the months leading up to it, they also imposed certain rules to ensure that nobody actually has a zero balance. My nursery for example has a rule whereby you have to have a minimum of 3x10 hour days to use the funding, with 5 hours a day being self funded. It’s all quite complicated.

I don’t get it - because DH earns over the threshold, which I realise makes me very fortunate in many ways (although greatly reduces the direct cash benefit of me working at all), but I find it so frustrating how it is given with one hand and taken, in its practical application, with the other.

If you want to live comfortably and have the state give you the necessary living and health assistance in that old age then I’m afraid children aren’t a choice, as otherwise we’ll have no one paying tax. The UK pension system is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme where the current working generation pay for the retired.

I also started work in the 1970s and paid over a lifetime and remember the high rate of tax.
When I graduated in 1970 I never thought of owning my own home - it was living in a bedsitter with a shared bathroom and kitchen.

The amount I paid in income tax and NI may look 'not enough' to the current MN posters but there has been inflation over the years since then and IRs were never sub 5%

When I bought my first house the mortgage payment and childcare took most of my salary - no handouts or generous benefits then.

No-one I know is expecting free care homes (in fact most have to fund ourselves if we have assets) yet judging by some of you on here expect free chikldcare when you are on a 6 figure salary.

Apologies, the point that it has risen and is rising is still there. Ie the time spent in HE and working is just added onto the end of your working life rather than lost.

Even less than that. Take my FIL for example - born as the war ended in 1945. He left school at 15, like the vast vast majority did then, just before free university tuition started in 1962. The numbers of his generation who went to uni were minuscule - 4%. By the end of the 70s that was 14% but you didn't see mass participation until much later.

For the vast majority of today's pensioners, university education (or even staying at school past 15/16) was a minority, and largely privileged, pursuit.

I don’t want free childcare - I want affordable, accessible childcare for every family.

Subsidised childcare increases productivity (in theory)
subsidised (non means tested) elder care just protects inherited wealth.

Yep, you get the "the country's full" folk, who are merrily ignoring the fact that if it's full, it's full with an unsustainably unbalanced demographic and a proportionately shrinking working age population we haven't invested in properly.

Even without increased life expectancy and increased time between generations, we were going to be screwed. Those two things have just been the icing on the cake.

Exactly. I posted at 13:05 re the forecasting that’s been done on this:-

Re investing in childcare:-

The case for investment is irrefutable: 1.7 million women are currently restricted from working more by childcare costs. Investment would unlock £28 billion annually, over four and a half times the net investment required calculated after job creation, consumption and social security savings.

The investment required would pay for itself 4.5x over!

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/116231/pdf/

We were all paying the same rate as today’s higher rate workers.

Tax isn’t just income tax though & I don’t believe there’s ever been a generation where every single adult has worked full time their whole lives.

Yep, you get the "the country's full" folk, who are merrily ignoring the fact that if it's full, it's full with an unsustainably unbalanced demographic and a proportionately shrinking working age population we haven't invested in properly.

I find it so depressing but I guess it’s a reflection of educational standards which is still depressing.

Even without increased life expectancy and increased time between generations, we were going to be screwed.

All that’s is coming is more tax, more cuts to public services, more immigration & more moaning about immigration.

Yes and it does feel deflating knowing we are doing more, for less and actually there’s no real prospect of change and improvement. Despite the uphill struggle things are actually getting worse for us as a whole.

I think you are ignoring why some people grudge all their savings being spent on care home fees. It's not greed (what else are they going to spend their money on?). There's a huge desire to leave something behind, to help our children and grandchildren, because we are very aware of the difficulties they face funding homes and education. It may be selfish, to want to leave an inheritance to family rather than benefit the wider state, but understandable.

Oh, because to me, it comes across as another pop at the 'older generation who live in 7 bedroomed houses in 40 hectares but get every benefit under the sun and expecting more at our expense, and no, pensionerers do not live in poverty wondering whether to eat or heat, who have health needs but cannot access care' type of thread

I’m not ignorant to that, and bearing in mind that that’s exactly the scenario I’m in with my own parents who are approaching their 70’s.

If that’s the case it’s an even worse prospect for the next generation, whose financial landscape looks even poorer!

Way to miss the point. I included NI. Maybe look at what I responded to.

I think you are ignoring why some people grudge all their savings being spent on care home fees. It's not greed (what else are they going to spend their money on?). There's a huge desire to leave something behind, to help our children and grandchildren, because we are very aware of the difficulties they face funding homes and education. It may be selfish, to want to leave an inheritance to family rather than benefit the wider state, but understandable.

But if housing wasn’t so inflated & wages so low then people wouldn’t need an inheritance to get on the ladder.

Plus it makes it more unequal for those rug don’t have an inheritance.

I'm guessing @VickyEadieofThigh 's parents worked as a team. Her father will have been able to go out to work and pay into the system, because her mother stayed at home for some time to look after the children. Together, they will have paid a substantial amount into the system, and it will have been proportional to what they were earning.

Childcare is expensive, but care homes are eye-wateringly expensive. My MIL had nursing care for five years, paid for by her, until the money ran out. It's possible she did get out more than she paid in, but she wasn't exactly enjoying being quids in on this occasion.

Way to miss the point.

the irony 😆. Honestly do you not have a hobby? I can give you my netflix password if you like.

Five years? That’s at least a quarter of a million @Hillarious.

Well, we could scrap the welfare state, so that everyone 'supports their own family' and nobody's old age is 'funded'. Let everyone pay for healthcare, education, child care and care homes. No UC, no child benefit, contributory pensions only and no tax-funded education.

So when people recovered from childbirth they could go straight back to work and pay a wetnurse on top of the maternity fees. If they or the baby got ill, they would pay the doctor and pharmacist if they didn't need hospital, and if they did, that would be an extra charge. With what was left they'd get a nanny, or send the kids to a baby farm until the prep school would take them. After paying until the last child left private university, assuming there were no accrued debts from anyone needing healthcare, people could start saving for older age. With pensions only going to those who've paid for them, there would be no SPA, so most people would be able to work all their lives. Those needing care would either be looked after by their families or pay for self-funded homes with money they'd saved by not spending on their children over the years. Or maybe the state could run to workhouses for the profligate?

SAHPs would have to pay taxes towards the police, roads, defence and so on (all working age adults would make compulsory contributions), as otherwise they would be being 'funded' by workers. They could choose whether to save for their tax bills before giving birth, or their partners could cover it, but there would be no deductions for being part of a couple. No NI though, as that largely funds things that might support other people, and that wouldn't be fair.

Does that appeal to you?