Page 13 | Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

Cococomellon · 2023-01-01T16:43:19+00:00

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?

rightsforunderfives · 06/01/2023 11:02

@Overthebow sadly this has always been the case. Those in the middle are squeezed the most. It's a disgrace really. The very wealthy seem to somehow manage to avoid tax, yet they are the ones who should be supporting the less well off. Instead it always falls to the middle. You end up so politically homeless!

QforCucumber · 06/01/2023 12:21

Surely it's economics at its most basic level?

Those of you up in arms about not paying for other peoples childcare - those children will be the ones in 30 years caring for you, being your DR, your nurse, your binmen, your shop assistants, your cleaners, your carers, they will be paying current taxes to pay for your old age healthcare, state pension, facilities - it's really very easy to understand.

I am 36, we pay childcare of £1250 a month for ds2 and then £500 a month for ds1 wraparound. This means one of our wages is entirely spent on childcare, meaning we can't put any money into holidays or savings or a bigger house or other local ecomony spends. I could leave work of course, and claim UC and be a drain on the taxation system.

I've been looking at the Canadian model (which has been proven to work) they are subsidising childcare so a nursery place costs a parent a maximum of $10 a day. The subsidy is more than paying for itself in other taxes, the number of parents who have returned to Full Time work - both lower and higher paid and so paying taxes. The reduction in benefit payouts because of people working more and not needing benefits, and local economy taxes such as VAT as people have more to spend in their local shops and on local businesses.

This just makes so much more logical sense, fund the care so people can return to work and pay taxes/reduce their claim for benefits and it pays for itself.

rightsforunderfives · 06/01/2023 17:37

QforCucumber · 06/01/2023 12:21

Surely it's economics at its most basic level?

Those of you up in arms about not paying for other peoples childcare - those children will be the ones in 30 years caring for you, being your DR, your nurse, your binmen, your shop assistants, your cleaners, your carers, they will be paying current taxes to pay for your old age healthcare, state pension, facilities - it's really very easy to understand.

I am 36, we pay childcare of £1250 a month for ds2 and then £500 a month for ds1 wraparound. This means one of our wages is entirely spent on childcare, meaning we can't put any money into holidays or savings or a bigger house or other local ecomony spends. I could leave work of course, and claim UC and be a drain on the taxation system.

I've been looking at the Canadian model (which has been proven to work) they are subsidising childcare so a nursery place costs a parent a maximum of $10 a day. The subsidy is more than paying for itself in other taxes, the number of parents who have returned to Full Time work - both lower and higher paid and so paying taxes. The reduction in benefit payouts because of people working more and not needing benefits, and local economy taxes such as VAT as people have more to spend in their local shops and on local businesses.

This just makes so much more logical sense, fund the care so people can return to work and pay taxes/reduce their claim for benefits and it pays for itself.

The proof is that investment in early years is huge. But only when it's done properly as EARLY YEARS EDUCATION. Definitely not when it's denigrated to 'childcare'. No bright and intelligent person of sane mind (basically the people that we need in EY education) wants to be a 'childcare worker'.

Reugny · 06/01/2023 19:44

rightsforunderfives · 06/01/2023 17:37

The proof is that investment in early years is huge. But only when it's done properly as EARLY YEARS EDUCATION. Definitely not when it's denigrated to 'childcare'. No bright and intelligent person of sane mind (basically the people that we need in EY education) wants to be a 'childcare worker'.

Show quote history

My DD's childcare workers are either women in their 50s or young people up to 25 - yes it does include men - who are clearly going off in a couple of years to do something else.

One of her former nursery workers is on a round the world trip.

And I suspect our CM will retire in a few years.

Reugny · 06/01/2023 19:47

QforCucumber · 06/01/2023 12:21

Surely it's economics at its most basic level?

Those of you up in arms about not paying for other peoples childcare - those children will be the ones in 30 years caring for you, being your DR, your nurse, your binmen, your shop assistants, your cleaners, your carers, they will be paying current taxes to pay for your old age healthcare, state pension, facilities - it's really very easy to understand.

I am 36, we pay childcare of £1250 a month for ds2 and then £500 a month for ds1 wraparound. This means one of our wages is entirely spent on childcare, meaning we can't put any money into holidays or savings or a bigger house or other local ecomony spends. I could leave work of course, and claim UC and be a drain on the taxation system.

I've been looking at the Canadian model (which has been proven to work) they are subsidising childcare so a nursery place costs a parent a maximum of $10 a day. The subsidy is more than paying for itself in other taxes, the number of parents who have returned to Full Time work - both lower and higher paid and so paying taxes. The reduction in benefit payouts because of people working more and not needing benefits, and local economy taxes such as VAT as people have more to spend in their local shops and on local businesses.

This just makes so much more logical sense, fund the care so people can return to work and pay taxes/reduce their claim for benefits and it pays for itself.

10 dollars a day is too low.

My DD's nursery charges fees based on household income. However it is run by a charity and crossed subsidized.

OakTree85 · 06/01/2023 20:47

No I'm not. I'm saying it's better to offer free childcare so women can work if they choose to. The child to adult ratio should be whatever is considered appropriate by the experts (not the government).

Natsku · 06/01/2023 21:33

Reugny · 06/01/2023 19:44

My DD's childcare workers are either women in their 50s or young people up to 25 - yes it does include men - who are clearly going off in a couple of years to do something else.

One of her former nursery workers is on a round the world trip.

And I suspect our CM will retire in a few years.

Show quote history

The childcare workers at my son's nursery are all ages (don't think I've seen a single man though, but its a big nursery so maybe in other classes), some I recognise from when my daughter was at nursery years ago, its a profession for life for them. One of the workers is also a local councilwoman, not going off to do other things but doing them along side her job which she clearly values. Its not a low-valued job in my country even though its pay isn't on the level with its value (they've been striking about that though so hopefully its going up)

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 12:22

Thehonestbadger · 01/01/2023 18:36

I have 2 toddlers under 3

I think that children are essentially the next generation of working adults and society. To me it makes sense that the government should invest in them from the start. Low income children are at higher risk of not having facilities/nutrition/development opportunities from a young age through no fault of their own and families are more likely to be low income and struggle if childcare isn’t affordable.

I think it’s a bit hypocritical for the government to fund so much for elderly but so little for children. Before anyone starts wielding their pitchfork screaming ‘well people shouldn’t have kids they can’t afford’ at what age exactly does the child become a person in their own right and not simply the ‘fault’ of their parents? I mean 95yo Doris is costing the country £500k+ a year in care and NHS costs (never had a job because that’s how it was in her day she stayed home) and that’s fine…but someone suggests 2yo Margot’s daycare should be subsidised and ‘shouldn’t have had kids you couldn’t afford’ is thrown around like Margot isn’t actually a person who deserves anything and is simply her mums ‘fault’.
I mean Doris had parents too, maybe they shouldn’t have had her if they couldn’t afford to leave enough in their will for her future care to be paid for.

Scandinavian countries have a much more holistic approach to young families which produces a much happier and healthier society. It feels like the U.K. get very cross at the thought of kids being given anything other than by parents

Such truth. A child becomes a person in their own right as soon as it's born (I personally feel that it's before this, but I'm not sure at what point babies are sentient in the womb). This whole fact is missing in the whole conversation about 'childcare'. Childcare remains a service for parents. Early years education and care is for children. The narrative needs to shift to what's best for the child, not what's best for everyone else!

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 13:11

OakTree85 · 01/01/2023 18:27

Childcare should be free paid for by taxation. This allows both parents to work and thereby pay tax. If both parents would prefer to work then society gets the benefit of their labour. Childcare professionals look after multiple children so there is a benefit of economies of scale. Raising a child is a benefit for the whole of society and the burden of this should not fall solely on the lowest earner parent, usually the mother.

"Affordable childcare" does not raise a child. Simple. If we focus on what the child needs, rather than tax receipts and careers we would realise that the term affordable should never, ever be applied to nurturing our youngest citizens. It should be heavily subsidised and accessible to parents, yes, but it should be early childhood education and care. For them. It's for the children, NOT for the parents.

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 13:17

TheGirlWhoTamedTheDragon · 01/01/2023 18:54

The countries that make childcare free ir very heavily subsidised (max a couple of hundred pounds per month) i.e. most of our comparable European neighbours plus some others do not do so out of altruism. They do so because it's been proved by the data to be beneficial for society as a whole.

It increases tax revenue and productivity. In reduces inequality. It stops the waste of many women's skills and aids their career progression, which then leads to more women later in life in senior positions and it's also been proved that companies with Boards with a mix of men and women in executive positions produce more profit and are more stable than those with men dominating, therefore greater ecomonic stability and more tax take. Higher productivity. Less stress on marriages so lower divorce rates, lower gender paygap, better example set to children, etc etc.

It's a no brainer basically and pays for itself many times over. That is why sensible countries subsidise it almost entirely/ fully cover the cost. The reason this doesn't happen in the UK is the same reason we have the lowest productivity in the G7, the reason we had Brexit, the reason the NHS and education are collapsing, the reason our infrastructure is falling apart and the reason that there were no plans in place for food and energy security: no long-term planning from successive Governments, and an electorate that doesn't demand it or hold them to account for not doing it.

These countries just don't talk about childcare though. They talk about early childhood care and education. This is because it's a service FOR the children. The UK narrative forgets about the children and the focus is just on a service for parents. Don't fall for it! What about the children!!

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 21:19

CaptainMyCaptain · 02/01/2023 08:10

I believe France has free 'ecole maternelle' for all 3 year olds unless that has changed recently.

My child was at school in France. It was awful.

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 21:24

tiggergoesbounce · 02/01/2023 09:45

Germany has heavily subsidised and nearly free childcare

I was looking for free for all provisions as that seemed to be the comparison.

italy has very good childcare provisions, nearly all 3-6 year olds are in state nurseries

But the state provisions are not regulated so the quality of some of the provisions are questionable.

Nordic countries have good childcare

Yes, and they pay higher taxes.

I was looking for something suggesting that improves our economy having it free to all

Thé Heckman Report is the one that did the research on this. It talks about the return on investment due to healthcare savings, crime, tax receipts etc. However, other papers show that unless the Early Years Education is EXTREMELY GOOD, nurseries can, in fact be detrimental to the child's future. This is why talking about 'childcare' (pretty sure my 13 year old son could do that) is unacceptable. We need to be investing in proper EY education FOR THE CHILDREN. We need to take the focus away from it being a service for working parents. The countries you cite call it ECEC. Early Childhood Education and Care.

rightsforunderfives · 07/01/2023 21:26

MrsSkylerWhite · 02/01/2023 11:57

No. If people can afford to pay, they should.
Heard a shocking headline advertising a File on Four investigation. There has been a significant increase in the number of children entering g the care system simply because their families can no longer afford to care for them. Think about that. In 2023.
public funds should be directed at those who need them, not given out universally.

This is what happened in Romania. The state should never, ever be responsible for children. The way that EY and schools are funded is a tiny glimpse why. Parents have to protect their children at all costs.

misslonglegs · 08/01/2023 11:16

tiggergoesbounce · 02/01/2023 17:09

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.

The blame is being squarely placed on “high childcare costs”. Even Justine from mumsnet said so in the Telegraph article.

It seems there’s outrage that parents have to fork out 29% of earnings on their child being looked after while they work.

What’s not mentioned is, that childcarers and nurseries need to charge that hourly rate to survive in the same financial crisis.

LolaSmiles · 08/01/2023 11:20

misslonglegs
That's a good point.

The proposed changes in ratios was absolutely nothing to do with providing high quality childcare at affordable rates and everything about trying to push more parents back into work.

Wages in places are too low, they don't allow families to have a good standard of living and yet the solutions proposed are never about making employers pay better wages to people.

We've got people on benefits because the government would rather spend taxpayer's money than push companies to pay proper wages. In-work benefits are actually handouts to companies so they can avoid paying a decent wage.

Changes to childcare are the same. The government would rather erode the quality of childcare and education for most of the nation's children, than push for workers to be paid an acceptable wage.

It's a rush to the bottom in order to push more parents into working poorly paid jobs.

misslonglegs · 08/01/2023 11:20

There is an unspoken sentiment that every woman deserves a good wage and to be able to work, except if they’re in childcare that is.

Then they should gladly work long hours and low pay, increase ratios so they can work harder with more children and do it gladly because they’re affording career women/women in other professions cheap childcare.

Many women complain of a daily rate of childcare which they wouldn’t dream of being paid themselves and it’s wrong.

misslonglegs · 08/01/2023 11:22

LolaSmiles · 08/01/2023 11:20

misslonglegs
That's a good point.

The proposed changes in ratios was absolutely nothing to do with providing high quality childcare at affordable rates and everything about trying to push more parents back into work.

Wages in places are too low, they don't allow families to have a good standard of living and yet the solutions proposed are never about making employers pay better wages to people.

We've got people on benefits because the government would rather spend taxpayer's money than push companies to pay proper wages. In-work benefits are actually handouts to companies so they can avoid paying a decent wage.

Changes to childcare are the same. The government would rather erode the quality of childcare and education for most of the nation's children, than push for workers to be paid an acceptable wage.

It's a rush to the bottom in order to push more parents into working poorly paid jobs.

Yes exactly, they want to appear to be helping parents and at the same time not have to spend a penny on improving the Early Years sector.

All the while de-regulating childcare settings, worsening quality and making childcare workers work doubly hard for the same money.

LolaSmiles · 08/01/2023 11:27

All the while de-regulating childcare settings, worsening quality and making childcare workers work doubly hard for the same money.
This!
Keep everyone, especially those on lower incomes, in precarious employment, get the children in settings from a young age where they won't get a good quality experience.

If you wanted to be really cynical you could argue that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent social mobility and to keep generations in their place.

The people who can afford to choose a setting that keeps good ratios will continue to do so, and others will cut back to make it so, and the gaps between the haves and the have nots gets bigger and bigger.

misslonglegs · 08/01/2023 11:31

LolaSmiles · 08/01/2023 11:27

All the while de-regulating childcare settings, worsening quality and making childcare workers work doubly hard for the same money.
This!
Keep everyone, especially those on lower incomes, in precarious employment, get the children in settings from a young age where they won't get a good quality experience.

If you wanted to be really cynical you could argue that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent social mobility and to keep generations in their place.

The people who can afford to choose a setting that keeps good ratios will continue to do so, and others will cut back to make it so, and the gaps between the haves and the have nots gets bigger and bigger.

Yes, agreed.

Cynical is the perfect word to describe the hatchet job Truss wanted to implement to ‘help families, provide more free hours’

rightsforunderfives · 08/01/2023 13:47

Whatafielddayfortheheat · 02/01/2023 16:47

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

No one wants to be a 'childcare worker'. Not really. Early Years Teacher yes, but childcare worker isn't really aspirational for staff OR the children that they educate.

rightsforunderfives · 08/01/2023 13:50

Whatafielddayfortheheat · 02/01/2023 17:07

@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.

There aren't enough people wanting a career in 'childcare'. If it was a respected profession as per other countries (EY teacher) we may have more luck. Here it's 'hair or childcare' for people who aren't academic. We NEED people who understand brain development in the early years. Not babysitters. Is this a service for parents, or a service for children?

rightsforunderfives · 08/01/2023 13:56

SplunkPostGres · 03/01/2023 20:47

At the very least it should be fully tax deductible. Enable parents to work by removing barriers to entering the workplace. As a single parent, I hate being a higher rate tax payer without any consideration for the increased costs I incur to be able to work.

I totally agree with this. We have to pay tax for all sorts of things which aren't in our interest. We should get more say in where it's spent and get tax relief for ALL education/children's activities etc.

Whatafielddayfortheheat · 08/01/2023 13:58

@rightsforunderfives as an Oxford educated early years teacher, I agree with you. But it's a slightly different issue. We need childcare to be high-quality AND affordable for parents. It is possible, but it needs political will.

rightsforunderfives · 08/01/2023 14:05

misslonglegs · 08/01/2023 11:20

There is an unspoken sentiment that every woman deserves a good wage and to be able to work, except if they’re in childcare that is.

Then they should gladly work long hours and low pay, increase ratios so they can work harder with more children and do it gladly because they’re affording career women/women in other professions cheap childcare.

Many women complain of a daily rate of childcare which they wouldn’t dream of being paid themselves and it’s wrong.

Got it in one!! Plentiful, flexible, high-quality 'childcare' (which anyone who works with small children knows is a totally offensive word for what we do). Who do they think is going to actually provide this? No-one wants to be called a 'childcare worker'. And what about the children? They appear to be being 'done to' with no voice at all. It's a travesty.

rightsforunderfives · 08/01/2023 14:10

Whatafielddayfortheheat · 08/01/2023 13:58

@rightsforunderfives as an Oxford educated early years teacher, I agree with you. But it's a slightly different issue. We need childcare to be high-quality AND affordable for parents. It is possible, but it needs political will.

We'll only get to that point when people stop referring to it as 'childcare'. They don't in other OECD countries. You're clearly not a childcare worker, and you're doing far more than childcare. Please don't put up with that awful word! My 13 year old son can do 'childcare' and the understanding is that 'anyone' can do childcare. Working with young children in a skilful way is very, very different! When people think that they can do our jobs but would prefer not to, we get treated as little more than skivvies. Although we probably get paid less because we're seen to be kind, loving types who don't mind.