Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

[Cococomellon]

I have seen a lot of posts in social media about the cost of childcare, that it should be free and all the reasons in favour of that such as allowing both parents to work and the impact on the economy.

I can see how this would be a benefit. I have a young child and pay for childcare but I planned for this and it is not a surprise to me.

Who pays for this "free" childcare? Is there spare money the government has squirrelled somewhere? Should we all pay more taxes? Will the nhs get even less funding? Schools?

Perhaps I am just very right wing as I don't see to see the counter- arguments but I'm sure many people (some who don't have children) don't want to pay for others children to go to nursery?

Countries not counties.

Hi don’t think childcare should be free as it’s people’s own choice to have children, but there should be a better balance which would in turn help the economy. Childcare should be completely tax free, and perhaps 15 hours funded from 1 years old for everyone.

@Overthebow yes, it's ridiculous that you get nothing (except tax free childcare if you earn enough) between 1 and 3. What are you meant to do?! If they acknowledge the need at 3, then why not before?

@TheGirlWhoTamedTheDragon

No. That isn't what I said, at all

A PP said they didnt agree with free childcare.
Your response was something like "i will say it very slowly again it more than pay for itself"

The fact is heavy state subsidies to make childcare affordable for all have been shown to more than pay for themselves in economic benefit: more people working, more people paying taxes (both the parents and childcare workers, so the state gets some of the subsidy back immediately in tax anyway) and better productivity

The data is all freely available if you wish to look it up

I have looked for data showing a direct correlation with free/heavily subsidised childcare and a better economy, and there isn't any. They may have a better economy so can afford to subsidise more but i cant find anything showing a poor economoy improved based on subsidised childcare but im interested if you have any ?

One of my question is if you work on the basis that you are paying for everyones childcare or even more heavily subsidised, more than it is now (as we dont do badly from 2 years old i yhink it is)that will be billions more but Not every additional person who puts their child in childcare will then go on to work, not all the unemployed want to work.

The areas we have major gaps in industry are jobs that noone wants, where skilled people are leaving due to conditions.
You cant force people into those roles

What industries/sectors do you think all these newly found working people are going into??
There are already hundreds of applicants per job at the moment, gaining employment that people believe they deserve, isnt easy.

The bonus of affordable childcare for younger babies means parents (mums) dont have to leave their jobs, that doesnt create a job, it just means someone else (a man) does get to take it off her, which is amazing (and we need something in itself to assist those) but not creating or filling vacancies.

Sorry that should have said
but i cant find anything showing a poor economoy improved based on a more heavily subsidised childcare system than ours but im interested if you have any ?

@tiggergoesbounce well it creates jobs in the childcare industry, for a start...

Childcare costs vary from £6-£12 per hour and parents should prepare for this, providers are often earning little after overheads and are in crisis.

Benefits should help low earners or single parents that are struggling with the fees.

We can’t ignore that providers are charging a reasonable fee in most cases.

@misslonglegs I don't think anyone is saying child care providers should charge less, rather that the government should better subsidise their costs.

The taxpayer rather

I get the arguments for it but then we do have subsidised childcare from age three which I found very useful

Arguments for doing same from one could be made but it’s expensive to fund and higher taxes. I’ve got through all those stages now and paid a lot

@MarshaBradyo well, people using the childcare will also pay taxes, and there'd be a lot more of them if we could afford the childcare.

@Whatafielddayfortheheat but people are leaving those settings now, due to bad conditions. So they would all want to be trained (more cost) and want to work with babies. Im not sure the vast majority wants to be leaving their baby to look after someone elses.

@tiggergoesbounce I work in this industry. A large part of the reason people leave is because when they have their own kids, their wages are too low to afford childcare!

This government is already suggesting fudging ratios so we cam just fill up childcare settings, with the same number of staff- that will affect conditions even more and quality of the care provided.

I work in this industry. A large part of the reason people leave is because when they have their own kids, their wages are too low to afford childcare!

So you fall into the category of you should be better supported to stay in your role. That's what needs to be concentrated on, not a free for all.

These settings are just about earning anything as it is. A family members of mine has just closed, they simply couldnt afford to keep it running. It had subsidised children and it just wasnt enough to keep it going. The staff who were passionate and good at their jobs were leaving because it was just becoming unreasonable with all the cuts that are needed to try and stay open.

Again in your position your tax may cover your childcare but that wont be the case for all and your tax has to cover alot of other (already underfunded) services. So the split of that tax is unlikely to cover your cost of good free childcare.

I know views on childcare are quite mixed here but just on googling it seems our ratios are tighter than other comparable countries

I'm in London and my CM is yet to increase her fees even though babies take more work than 4 year olds. Other child minders cost around £2 more per hour.

My CM seemed most tired the year my DD was 2 as she had 3 the same age (2 years old) 3-4 days a week.

My DD also goes to nursery now. The total for 5 days a week child care thanks to the free hours is about the same.

Having a child is an investment in the future of the country. They are the ones who will work, pay taxes and care for the elderly (including those who did not have children). It makes sense to subsidise them. If not the only way society can build its future workforce is through immigration

I know views on childcare are quite mixed here but just on googling it seems our ratios are tighter than other comparable countries

Yes and in my opinion thats a good thing. We shouldn't be trying to reduce the quality of the care so we can get more kids in.
I suppose it depends on what you want the childcare to be - engaging and educational or the bare minimum to keep them safe.

The providers i know want to provide the best care possible it saddens them to think this is going to be diluted.
Again in my opinion, it's the children who gets shafted, again.

Yes, the children are our furure, so if the only subsidised care we can give them is by reducing the quality by reducing ratios, how is that best for the children ?
They are already getting shafted in schools being underfunded, at their most important time to be educated and go on to be the future of our country.
If we cant afford to educate them adequately (or even nearly adequately now) what hope do we have.

Having a child is an investment in the future of the country. They are the ones who will work, pay taxes and care for the elderly (including those who did not have children). It makes sense to subsidise them. If not the only way society can build its future workforce is through immigration

Lets concentrate on funding educating them adequately in our schools first.

Pointless just funding education for children over 5 who are unable to learn due to the early years education before that age.

Pointless just funding education for children over 5 who are unable to learn due to the early years education before that age

We are not just (not even, more like) funding education for over 5 (4) year olds currently, you get funded free hours at aged 3 and some get funded hours at 2, i believe.

Im not sure im understanding you right , do you mean if kids haven't been to nursery before school (alot are aged 4) then theres no point funding their education because they are "unable to learn"??
Im sure i misunderstanding as noone can truly believe that. Some dont go to any nursery before school and the are still more than able learn

The basic to school education is early years a child without listening and attention skills, no fine motor strength is behind before you start reading and writing. This is why research shows 2 year old funding is so important

I was a very conscientious sahm so I agree some children who are at home get to school perfectly able to learn. We have to recognise the reality though, that lots of children are largely ignored at home, don’t have many toys and aren’t shown how much fun books can be.

@DingDangMintyBells yep that's exactly what I mean.

It's in our own (selfish) interests to ensure children aren't behind when they start school as often we end up paying more for them when they are adults.

I was a very conscientious sahm so I agree some children who are at home get to school perfectly able to learn. We have to recognise the reality though, that lots of children are largely ignored at home, don’t have many toys and aren’t shown how much fun books can be

I agree but we have funding for 2 year olds here to try and help with the most under privileged gaining access to education and help identify any other issues. But again, we have access to subsidised 2 year education.
I dont agree that if a child misses out on education from aged 2 to 4, they can't learn, i believe, thats rubbish and they can catch up.