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?

@rightsforunderfives I agree with you and I hadn't considered the implications of calling it 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.
Agree with this.
It's why I struggle with people who claim that being a SAHP is the same as being an early years educator. It really isn't. Most of what most parents do day to day wouldn't come close to the skill of good early years educators.

I'd consider myself an engaged parent and we have a resource rich home, lots of opportunities for open ended play, a language rich environment and so on, but being a half decent mum isn't the same as being a trained professional promoting early education for a range of children, with a range of needs, supporting them in growing independence and managing their peer relationships.
I take my hat off to start who've worked with DC. Give me a class of 32 teenagers to teach any day over early years. Early years is an under-valued line of expertise.

Although we probably get paid less because we're seen to be kind, loving types who don't mind.
I suspect it's because it's viewed as women's work.

Apologies for using the term ‘childcare’ and ‘childcare workers’. You’re right it really does give an undervalued impression.

Yes. I did a research paper on this. The term ‘childcare’ and the fact that it’s seen as women’s work are two factors. The other (and main one) is the deficit view of children. Something as an obstacle to work rather than deserving of an EY education that could set them up for life and save the government billions in the future. Once we put children’s rights at the centre of our planning the answers are all incredibly simple.

The problem is that traditional women's work is invisible and unvalued. The Wages for Housework campaigners were onto something. www.huckmag.com/perspectives/why-the-wages-for-housework-campaign-is-still-vital/

Childcare, cooking, cleaning, caring, some nursing - they're not seen as part of the economic system but they are essential to its functioning.

A child who is given a decent home, education and food will be happier and healthier but also, to be frank, less of a drain on the state so it's in the nation's economic interest to invest in young children. Eg poor nutrition will lead to worse lifelong health so a child will be less productive as a worker, require more healthcare, etc.

I'd be happy to fund that through tax. Same with tuition fees. We all benefit from investment in the next generation. Fund it through lifestyle taxes.

Yes, me too. But not for the state to organise. They don’t appear to be able to manage anything competently. Our state education is an appalling mess with teachers overworked, underpaid, undervalued; overstretched. It’s a miracle that some of them manage to teach - crowd control seems to be all the government are paying for. I wish we could do the Australian system. Each child gets an education passport and it’s spent each year at whichever nursery or school the parent chooses. It is topped up by the parent as necessary. It gives a lot more children access to outstanding education. Schools have to do well in order to attract children. In the UK it’s basically dependent on your address, meaning that the wealthier can buy houses in areas with better schools. I’m afraid devaluing everything (NHS, education) lowers the expectations and therefore the quality. Clearly the people who say the NHS is the envy of the world have never sought medical care in another country. The NHS is a third world service now, and our education is going the same way.

Terrible idea. It also will cost the generation who use it in the future as pensions will have to be scrapped. The country can’t afford everything