I genuiney don't understand why the taxpayer should pay childcare costs

[Chertsey]

I know, believe me I know, that it's very expensive, but it's a cost of having children, like food, clothes, somewhere suitable to live and any activities you might want them to do. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

I worked for "nothing" for years but considered it an investment in all our futures - we're much better off now for having done that then, than we would have been if I'd given up work was now trying to find work after years out of the workforce.

So, apart from it being a vote winner, why should the tax payer fund it when it was all for my and my family's benefit?

Because some people find themselves in a situation they hadn't anticipated when they got pregnant, for example their partner leaves them, dies, becomes abusive? Because some people become pregnant by accident & may not find out until it's too late (unusual, I know, but it happens). Because breeding shouldn't be restricted to the wealthier sections of society?

It isn't all for your benefit. You are helping to bring the next generation into the world.

Oh I dunno. Maybe my children should not pay for any of your pension or care costs? Or are you planning on returning your state pension and not using any NHS facility?

Because generations ago either mums didn't work , or grandparents were retired and became free childcare .

But now most grandparents probably still within working age and both parents need to work (obviously a very general view but just an example)

Free childcare will create loads of jobs therefore decrease benefits and increase tax paid . IMHO universal free childcare for working parents will solve a multitude of this countries problems .

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying I don't understand, so enlighten me. There's no need for sarcasm.

I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes so there are appropriate benefits for people who need them, I'm more than happy to contribute to an NHS that's for everyone, but when childcare costs are being discussed, there's talk of subsidies for everyone, not just those who need the support.

Because keeping women in the workforce and ensuring their skills are kept up to date helps the economy to grow and thus benefits us all.

What talk of subsidies for all then?

I'm confused now. There is a tax saving scheme to aid childcare costs to get more people working because it helps the economy which in turn increases tax revenues.

Then there's the childcare element of tax credits but tax credits are not universal and are means tested.

So where is the problem? Geniunely no sarcasm.

Watching with interest.

I'm firmly of the opinion that parents should work whenever possible. However, the cost of childcare has risen massively - even in the intervening years between the teens being at nursery and DC3 going. Has the cost of childcare risen because private enterprises look at the childcare element of tax credits as a gravy train?

Because if the government want to insist that women must go out to work once their child turns 1, then they need to make work pay. The only way for that to happen in many cases is by childcare becoming cheaper.

It's a thing every time an election's coming up - how childcare is going to be more affordable. On the basis that the jobs it creates are largely close to minimum wage, the only way to make it cheaper is subsidy, or have I got that wrong too?

We already have some universal free care for 3 & 4 yos and it's in the news again today. Clegg is pledging 15 hours free for all parents with children over 9m and to increase it to 20 hours for all 2-4 yos. Labour are saying the government has failed because the costs have increased, but how were they supposed to keep them lower without it costing the taxpayer?

And how do you subsidise without private nurseries simply upping their prices and maximising their profits as a result?

Hopefully by keeping people in the workplace by subsidising childcare where necessary the people will continue to work and pay taxes once the children have got older and no longer need childcare.
I do think it should be means tested with an additional allowance for those who live and work in London.
I also think that parents should feel they have a choice about working when their children are young. Universal child benefit should be reinstated.

Because parents are taxpayers as well.

That's too glib openerofjars. Using that argument, all the costs of raising children should be covered by the state, even for the wealthy.

The wages in childcare are ridiculous. I see day care places advertising for staff, paying minimum wage and asking for lists of qualifications and experience.

Qualifications and experience are worth more than NMW surely?!

The 'free' care is schooling and applies only in term time. In my area the amount does not cover the actual hourly rate for the private nurseries and the public preschool attached to the school has a from birth waiting list.

The free pre schooling is also linked to better educational outcomes, I believe, as well as freeing up significant amounts of the adult population to serve as a labour force.

They did try and make it cheaper (last year, year before?) by relaxing child ratios but there was a massive outcry and it had to be abandoned.

Even with the subsidy, circumstances and a headstrong hr department have forced me part time so I too will be working for a financially neutral position until dd2 goes to primary school.

Childcare will still cost a fortune. Clegg's not getting in.

Nursery workers are paid too little, just like care workers.

It's the age old 'woman's work' thing isn't it ?

And the owners simply rake it in

Well, not if no-one will pay for it sliceofsoup.

I understand that in some circumstances people need support to work and I back that 100%. I don't understand what the country would have gained if I'd had the benefit of 20 hours or more free childcare.

Parents are paying for it. The money is going to the owners profits instead of paying the staff what they are worth.

I'm not entirely sure that's true sliceofsoup. Maybe for some posh nurseries, but CMs aren't raking it in and I run the finances for a before and afterschool club (for the LA). We just break even (which is as intended) but it's still a big cost to the parents.

What I don't understand on threads like these is why the focus is on the woman and her wages paying the childcare.... In quite a few cases there are 2 working adults!

You could say that about anything. Why should the taxpayer pay anything to anyone. I don't object to some kind of subsidised or part funded childcare but wouldn't want to see universal free childcare as that would cost far too much. But not sure I agree with those private nurseries because staff are paid a little and only person profiting is the owner.

Well exactly, 26, that's why the investment we made in childcare, so that we both continued to work was a joint one for our joint futures. Although I know I said I worked for "nothing", in reality, half my wages covered childcare and the rest was paid by DH (except that all our finances are joint so it was never quite like that)

Its a big circle isn't it, keep the worker bees working. That way it creates jobs keeping more worker bees working, then you have a parent paying tax who wouldn't before and more childcare workers paying tax who wouldn't before. You also have the added advantage of 'learning benefits' for the children and 'feeding them properly' ready for school and work life (although if you look at recent reports of children struggling in reception you wonder how good some of that preparation is).

I don't know the answer, id be really interested to see how subsiding helps the economy e.g how much paid in vs how much it creates.
But i do think subsiding helps individuals. Its also part of 'doing your bit' (blatantly stolen from the last leg) and like previous posters have said those children will fund your pension and NHS care one day.

You would have had thpse 20 hours extra to spend. What would you have spent it on? Savings? You might have been taxed on those. Goods? VAT, plus corporate tax revenues (another minefield but lets not go there).

Other women, who looked at their budgets and instead of being financially neutral going to work, actually had to PAY going to work, those 20 hours might make a difference.

And unexpected bills happen so very frequently.

It's an investment in parents, that hopefully returns more in terms of the wider economy than the cost of the subsidy. There's also the improved outcomes for children 2+ attending preschool for those hours.

And yes, there's an element of election vote winning.

when will women STOP equating child care costs with THEIR salaries? both of you have the flipping baby