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?

I don't think the taxpayer should have to pay for childcare (though there is an argument for funding early years education for children from disadvantaged backgrounds). However, I do think childcare costs should be tax deductible.

Think about it:
If every person with a child has to pay one other person a living wage to look after their child so they can work - that's not cost-efficient.
If a group of people get together to pay someone to look after their children, it's more cost-efficient.

And now we come to a con conceptual gateway: are children only the responsibility of their parents, or are they a 'public good' and thus the responsibility of all who benefit from that public good?

If you are inclined to view (a), that children are an individual, lifestyle choice, you will think that childcare needs to be sorted by the parents.
If you incline to ( b) you willnprobably think that childcare should be shared by those benefiting from the public good - ideally through taxation.

Add into that the issue of how people feel about women working - lifestyle choice? Human right? Something all should have to do? - and you can see that how you feel about childcare ... Subsidy ... Will result from where you stand on these related issues.

I totally agree OP.

I have no idea why childcare should be made more affordable.

I personally would like sailing holidays to be more affordable....

I would add that I get the impression you're a bit inclined to the individualist, lifestyle choice view, OP.
But I think you're naive. Your ability to 'choose' to work results from the struggles of other women. I think you owe women as a class a collective debt of support. I also think you benefit from an invisible subsidy - of largely women's labour: for example, the undervaluing of women's work makes the subsidy thst means you can afford to pay a woman to look after your children. As does your husband.
Lastly, if you have daughters, I would say that it is in your interest to put pressure on making things better for their future than by securing short-term gains for yourself.

If you're not being facetious then google Tall Ships 2015. You will find links to funded sailing holiday/adventure it says young people but the page on Sail Training International says all ages. Because people find worthwhile things in sailing too. Isn't the world a nice place?

I was being a bit more sensible than a surface reading might indicate.

Going on holiday is more expensive the more kids you have...it seems we are all capable of dealing with that idea. Nobody is really demanding that people need to make holidays cheaper for kids. Likewise housing and cars etc can be more expensive when you have a lot of kids....again no real outrage.

It turns out that having all of a child's parents working is also more expensive the more kids you have. So why the outrage on this one topic?

Because having a larve section of your workforce inactive for goodly chunks of time has a detrimental effect on an individual (your career and future earning potentials are stunted) and on a societal level (fewer workers, economy slows, fewer revenues. Especially a problem given the drop out rate of highly educated, skilled female workers).

Housing is also a massive problem and there are rumblings in government about it, even if you don't notice.

But unemployment is high! Getting parents back to work will only be putting others out of work?!!?

The proposal from the Tories is that if you have 3 children you will get £2k per child - £6k against what in London is about £30k a year childcare for 3 under 6. So a mere drop in the ocean.

however I am sure a welcome drop for many full time working parents.

The state chooses what to give tax relief on usually based on economic need. They want more tax payers and more money to fund old age pensions at present so might well be moving to more childcare subsidy including the new one I mention above although you have to get a nanny registered for that which is not currently a requirement which is a bit rich coming from a Government supposedly committed to deregulation and abolishing pointless box ticking and Council jobsworth types.
I would prefer many fewer tax reliefs and a much much much smaller state and much lower capped flat taxes.

The new capped 20% tax in Isle of Man where if you earn a lot you can just pay one lump sum and there is also no capital gains tax or inheritance tax is heaven on earth for many of us.

oh yes - I understand why the government is keen to get parents back to work...it increases the tax they get because the parents salary is essentially taxed twice.

Yet to be convinced it is good for society or parents, or and this barely gets discussed, CHILDREN.

Unemployment is falling IceBeing. It was one of yesterday's BBC's sstories. I did discuss that educational outcomes were better for the 2+age group to age regular preschool hours. As far as I knew, research results were varied but seemed to favour a consistent level of care, wherever that came from.

If you are ideologically opposed to women leaving their children to work please say do instead of insinuating that parents will be stealing jobs from the noses of others.

My mother went to University, then worked for 10 years, then had her children. After another 10 years looking after children she found it impossible to get a job, despite her 1st class degree in a scientific subject. So she never worked again. So 10/39 years were spent paying tax.

I went to university, worked for 15 years, had children, took 2 years maternity leave, worked part time for 5 years and went back to work full time where I hope to stay at least til 60. Estimated 34/39 years paying tax.

Now if the state pays half my childcare for 2 children for 4 years to incentivise me to stay at work that would cost approx. 40k. On an average wage (25k) the government would get 5k tax from me & 2k from my employer, so the outlay would only take 6 years to recoup. Everything after that is "profit".

On top of that, by women returning to work the government gets the means to grow our economy without growing the population numbers. There are also benefits bill

It also has the non-economic benefit of promoting equality of opportunity for women.

*research results for below that age group,sorry

For what it's worth, I think that a loud, public discussion of the impact of long-hours culture on the lives of children and working adults is long, long overdue.
To be able to have that , without it falling into woman-blaming, would bd quite something.
Frankly, I think we'll see the Thames freeze over first.

Melic auld - your post is really interesting. Did your mother's experience influence your decision to keep working?

Interesting point though. A managed level of unemployment is actually good for the economy. The last thing the economy needs is full employment. Miserable for the individuals it affects, but if we're looking at the greater good...

"I did discuss that educational outcomes were better for the 2+age group to age regular preschool hours"

That's not true, some research has found it to be true for children from the lower socioeconomic groups, but no-one has ever claimed it's best for all children.

Long hours culture is crippling, especially when both partners do it. Our orginal plan was to stick it out for a house deposit and both go part time. Instead my life is fucked over for other reasons and we will get through this year and reassess.

it's so needless as well. Japan has the 'salary man' problem (the super extreme version of it) and my BIL taught EFL there and asked what they did all day. He got told they didn't actually do that much more work but were afraid to be seen to go home.

A bit of that creeps in at my work place. You work late (unpaid) several days in a row... then some mornings you're bumming around 'networking' because you can't physically keep the pace up. Everyone foes it but maintains the facade.

Why is full employment bad? If we're talking about everyone who wants to work?

Or do you believe that inequality spurs competition?

That is really true LadyRaincorn. DH works for a Japanese company in UK. Among the Japanese staff no-one ever leaves before their boss. They're not working or achieving much but they won't leave until their boss does.

I also saw it a lot when I was a (wicked) banker. Men People "working" very long hours just to be seen to do so rather than achieving anything much. Also a good number avoiding bath and bedtime at home

I didn't say full employment is bad, I said it's bad for the economy. Which it is. A strong economy needs more labour supply than demand.

How do they arrive at unemployment statistics?
I am not employed but I am of working age, however, I don't feature on any unemployment statistics.
There are many people who are not employed and don't feature on unemployment statistics so I don't really believe that unemployment has fallen drastically and nor do I believe that we can ever achieve full employment.

because if they want single parents working they have to pay for their childcare, nursery fees were more than I earn.

In my darker days I count myself lucky I have a pension and the dc's have a working parent.

Okay. I see where you are coming from for that. But if we think of it purely in terms of demand and supply, then we will have permenant winners and loosers and cycles of boom and bust. And subsidies are interference with all of that as they are outside the system so to speak. In terms of monetary policy sometimes the government doesn't always like having a hugely strong economy. It's all so, well, stupid after a while.

Sorry if this point has already been made.

I heard on the radio this morning that the number of childminders is a fraction of what it used to be. Therefore an awful lot of childminders have given up, and fewer potential ones are joining.

I had my first two (eldest 23) at a childminder, and the main things I was interested in was that they were safe and happy. Tick. Almost any mum has the potential to do this for other mums - basically treating their mindees as their own - with relevent DBS, home safety, first aid checks. Nowadays, it seems like childminders have to be educationalists, and be masters of paperwork. This must put off a lot of potential childminders, for something that is not particularly valued by parents.

So, childcare moves into a nursery setting, with all the bureaucratic demands of an institutionalised setting and the costs rocket.

When I had my children, I would never have dreamed of expecting state help to look after them. I used childcare when my salary could cover it. When I had my third child, I looked after them myself. My salary could cover two at the childminder's, but not three. Had I had to use the local daycare nursery, I could only have afforded one child.

I don't think I am entitled to a large family as a human right.

Absolutely, unemployment needs to be low/high enough and the economy needs to be strong enough and no more. It's where that line is that's the tricky bit.

That's absolutely true Itishappening. The figures are based on those claiming out of work benefits. Make it harder to claim JSA and ,as if by magic, unemployment falls. I don't believe true unemployment has fallen much either.

Costs at a childminder aren't that much cheaper than a private nursery, plus I would have to provide food. I also don't expect a large family, or indeed any as a right, I can just see how it can make sense for a government to incentivise its workforce in this way.

Another reason childminders may not be starting is that private house rentals wouldnot allow businesses to be run from the home perhaps, or for the safety mmodifications to take place?