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?

Yes, yes, yes. I understand where people who wouldn't otherwise be able to work can work and but where would the benefit be in paying childcare costs for someone like me?

Again the benefits of early education are only really applicable when there is no "education" at all at home, so for children from very disadvantaged homes and even then there's a lot of debate about how valuable it really is.

Because I've added both salaries together and worked the effect of the timings, travelcosts etc? I'm the one changing hours so I'm describing the impact I'm having from my perspective?

I don't PAY all of it.

Chertsey - I fundamentally believe that childcare should be paid for before tax and here is why.....

People pay taxes for a variety of services, some of which that individual may use, some of which that individual does not. I have private medical insurance, does this mean that I should not pay tax that covers the costs of other NHS treatment etc. We do not have a pay for what you use system of taxation.

The question is whether society believes that this is something that is worthwhile and therefore worthy of funding. So really the question is it worthwhile subsidizing childcare to encourage/enable both parents to work, if they wish to do so.

You can approach this on a pure economic basis. More parents working is more tax revenue for the gov, job creation in the child care industry etc.

There is also the gender issue in this; more often than not this issue disproportionately affects women. Very few men I know have cut down hours, gone part time or given up working outside the home entirely following the birth of their children. This is the case even where both parents were earning similar amounts. If childcare costs £1,500 + per child per month (not unusual in London/SE) you have to be earning a decent enough wage to make it worthwhile for both parents to work. Further the fact that women leave work/ work part time after having children contributes to the gender pay gap.

Finally for me, I think it is important for my DD to see that some women work outside the home, some women choose to be SAHM and some women choose no kids at all (there are lots of other options in between). I want her to think that having a career is an option for her, if she doesn't see women working outside the home then what exactly is the point in doing well at school and working hard. I am lucky enough to work in a well paid professional industry yet the vast majority of my extremely talented female peers have left the industry/down graded their job role post children and cite child care costs as being one of the reasons why. This just feels wrong to me!

Did you read my post? Did you disagree with my points? Other posters have also made these points.

Because the economy as a whole gains from having more people in work - paying taxes, spending money etc - that money can then be spent on improving health/education etc.

Denmark for example enjoys a higher standard of living and equality than the UK and most mothers go back to work with families paying 25% of the cost of childcare and a sliding scale below that for low earners (gov pays the rest).

That facility is already available to some extent through childcare vouchers though MsMittens. What's always talked about when an election approaches is increasing free childcare or reducing the cost of childcare.

Yes, the economy gains from having more people in work, but I and others like me work anyway, without free or subsidised childcare.

But the economy also gains and grows from you having more money to spend. And the government rakes some of that back through tax revenues.

Chertsey - correct but childcare vouchers are only offered by some organizations and the amount one can save £250 per month on lower tax bracket, £124 on higher tax bracket covers between 1/3 and 1/4 of the approx. £1500 per child cost faced by parents in the South East.

I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on the gender side of things - do you not agree that the issue of childcare costs appears to disproportionately affect women more and limit women's opportunities?

Yes MsMittens, I can see that the childcare voucher scheme being extended would be a good thing, it's free universal childcare that troubles me. It seems hideously expensive and will benefit a lot of people who don't need it.

Childcare issues do affect women more than men but I honestly believe that's because for a lot of women that's how the like it. They want to be the primary carer, so even if working, they choose to have roles with flexibility, close to home etc so they can be there if needed. I know some will argue they were forced into that position, but I do believe for a substantial majority, that's they way they want it.

As I said, childcare was always a joint cost for DH and I and that's how it should be.

If I worked the household income would increase through my wages, and then decrease from the cost of childcare for one child full time and a second child wraparound.

It might not be my sole responsibility to pay the fees, but me going out to work would make us, as a whole, worse off.

And yes, I take the point about childminders etc. But the private nurseries, of which there are 3 in my town, are not posh. The fees are above the national average and they are paying their fully qualified with 2 or more years experience staff NMW.

Chertsey, you are coming off a little,' I struggled through, so I don't see why anyone else should now get it easier'

Would you have found it helpful to have that extra £200 or so a term time month?

Do you think it's important that the UK does as much as possible to keep all its workforce in work for as long as the want to be, and not forced out by the burden of childcare? Does it worry you that women are disportionately affected by this? That boys hardely ever (generalising madly here) see men in a caring or teaching roles outside of certain narrow situations? This is all affected by the child care cost debate, which is why people feel so passionately about it.

I don't know that it's true about wanting to stay home. And I think for the vast majority of families, what happens is economic necessity - I don't think that mumsnet is a representative sample.

I'm sorry if that's how I'm coming across, it's not how I feel at all LadyR. Like child benefit. If course it would be nice if I had it, but I don't need it, so it's better directed to those who do IMO.

Of course I would have enjoyed a bit more cash when my DC were younger, but why would I want/expect other taxpayers, many in no better or a worse position than me to provide it?

I completely accept it will depend on the demographics of the people you know, but in RL, I know far more mothers who work because they have to financially, either because the family needs their income, or because they're at risk of losing benefits if they don't, than I do SAHMs who would prefer to work.

The rights and wrongs of public subsidising I'm not sure about. But, one thing I am sure about is that the government should make sure that nurseries don't pocket the entire subsidy and still charge me the same amount as before, which is what our nursery does.

The whole system is unbalanced!

Wages in childcare are very low, expectations very high, staffing levels are high and the cost for the parent is astronomical! It's also increasing beyond the national increase of wages. It's already becoming a case of only those with high earning potential can afford to work.

When parents working full time on a wage over 18k are coming home with maybe 2k a year max it's got to be looked at.

The more people who work, the more the country earns and the better our services and lifestyles will be. Childcare costs and availability stop parents from being able to financially contribute to society. Parents have professions, ideas and the ability to employ, train, support and add to a community and nation. It sets up a great work ethic for our next generation and will help secure their future.

How does that work then DoraGora? The grant needs to be applied for in each child's name and then the funding applied against the hours of childcare they are providing you with. Aren't they committing fraud?

A full time nursery place for a one year old around here was equivalent to the post tax earnings of someone on £20k.

They just increase the price of the other hours, Lady.

I thought there was something in place to stop that? Or was that another pipe dream?

I thought the nurseries around here were expensive...

I have to earn over 18k full time to break even! I have one in nursery and one in junior school.

Actually, that does ring true. DS1 was in pre-school when free places were first introduced. I don't think they took all the subsidy, but certainly they used it as an opportunity to increase prices. But, that's years ago, you would think something had been done about it by now.

Because it's a public good.
Because it is the most cost-effective way of managing a situation that is ultimately going to benefit all society.

I think it's ok if they offer the option of preschool hours only. Ie the additional hours are optional - except they are not if you have a full time job.

By "ok" I mean they can get away with it - not that I think it's ethically ok.