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 I had DTs after my first child, I pay 1500 pm after tax. I am constantly overdrawn as a result :-(

I don't think the tax payer should be subsiding childcare, not when DS2 is going to be riddled with debt when he comes out of university. There is too much emphasis on the cost of small children not enough on when they get older imo.

I, also, think that if there is going to be an allowance in the tax system for childcare it should be extended to families with SAHPs. Before anyone shouts "they don't have childcare expenses", yes they do! They have given up a whole salary as it is the only way/the best way/ the way it suits them to enable them to bring up their children.

Just as there are cuts to all benefits and everybody will feel the pinch it isn't possible for childcare to be funded, there isn't the money in the pot anymore.
This gov has decided to cut welfare and support for working and none working parents already, they would rather make their fat cat friends richer.

I don't think the taxpayer should pay for free childcare but everyone should be entitled to deduct what they pay for one child's childcare from their taxes. I also think season tickets for travel should be tax-deductible as well.

It's an expense. How can entertaining clients at posh hotels be tax-deductible but childcare to allow me to get to work in the first place isn't?

Most people pay more in taxes than they would get out in tax relief.

I think the 'thinking' is that helping to cover childcare helps a person, usually the mother, to go to work when they might otherwise have stayed at home. I think it's assumed that the person working will put more into the economy then a SAHM, then the government will have had to pay out towards the childcare that enables them to work.

I think the secondary idea is that children benefit from being at nursery both socially and because of their exposure to early years education.

Of course in reality it's much more complicated then that. I'm a SAHM and I help my husband with his business, unpaid. This sort of situation isn't taken into account however.

an expense. How can entertaining clients at posh hotels be tax-deductible but childcare to allow me to get to work in the first place isn't?

I suppose the thinking behind that is that entertaining clients might be essential in order to secure clients, i.e. The business could not exist without entertaining clients.
However, having children is not essential to the business i.e. If you hadn't had children then your business would still exist.
The business cannot survive without clients but it can survive if the business owner doesn't have children.

HMRC " Some expenses are not allowable for tax purposes - for example, entertaining clients, even if such entertainment directly led to new business."

Because it is in the Government's interest that we continue to breed. So they offer some assistance with costs.

Because incentivising formal childcare, children may be able to access care given by qualified professionals rather than having to be cared for by relatives.

I give you two reasons OP:

1. The UK has, per the law, equality of the sexes. This has resulted in women being given an equal opportunity to an education and the debt that is associated with that education. The current childcare policy isn't consistent with equal opportunities.

1. If you don't allow for childcare you end up with many families living in poverty. The numbers released are shocking with over 50% of families in poverty. Why are these families living in poverty? Often one parent is at home looking after the DC because it doesn't pay to work. If both parents can't afford to work it is a lot harder to work your way out of poverty.

I am a firm believer in childcare being fully tax deductible against the lower income earners salary with any excess then applied to the higher income earner. I also think the government should be setting up their own childcare centers through the surestart centers and providing childcare at cost. Also, benefits should only consider income after childcare costs.

Before anyone shouts "they don't have childcare expenses", yes they do! They have given up a whole salary as it is the only way/the best way/ the way it suits them to enable them to bring up their children.

The whole point of subsidising childcare is to keep people in work. You can argue the toss about whether it is better for a parent to work or stay at home with their children, but from a societal point of view the only reason to subsidise childcare is if we think we all benefit from parents staying in the work force.

Yes merrymouse and I think we're probably back to my original point. Is it better from a societal POV, or do all the parties have some sort of policy in favour of it because it's a vote winner?

To be frank I agree.

If you fund childcare,why not a sahp? Both cost and often a sahp is preferable for the child.Many many workers don't pay tax or only a fraction so having 2x wp isn't always preferable for the treasury just because.

Also parents know they will have to fund either a sahp or childcare ( just like they will bigger food bills and clothes) so really should be planning and putting a bit by long before ttc instead of expecting the tax payer to automatically shell out.

Yes it's hard for a while but is temporary.Expecting no years of austerity when having a child is bonkers.Many parents are actually fully capable of funding childcare,I except for some it will be harder though and really think if we are going to help it should be for only those who need it.Free school dinners and childcare for families who don't need it when there are cuts elsewhere really annoys me.

And sorry shoving babies in full time nursery so mum can work in a shite job she hates and pays no tax on does not benefit society imvho.

LadyRainicorn Am I idealogically opposed to women leaving their kids? Well it would make me a hypocrite. I went back to work when DD was 4 months.

I think I am slightly idealogically opposed to children spending more time with strangers than parents in the first 2 years....but there is nothing to stop men being the stay at home parent, as is the case in our family.

And children not in childcare access early years education just fine- it's called pre-school. Nursery for under twos isn't actually recommended.

urgh - I really have a low opinion of 'early years education'.

IF you compare the UK stats to those from countries that start education at 7 you see that starting earlier really really doesn't help. The children don't achieve significant milestones any earlier and when they do get there the enthusiasm has been drilled out of the children.

In fact we are planning to home-ed to 7 on the basis of this data.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. This has been a really interesting thread.

There has never really been a golden time or method of child rearing has there?

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.

I agree with you OP.

It makes no sense for everyone to pay into a pot, only to have them send it back earmarked for some "approved" expense (with the cost of the administering the program backed out, naturally).

You could probably make the case for means-tested childcare subsidies, but don't those already exist?

What's the point of educating women to a point at significant cost to the taxpayer, and to a point where their educational achievements and earnings often outshine men, and then effectively leave many of them to wipe bottoms and noses at home for 3-5 yrs because of the one size fits all approach to childcare funding ? Making childcare tax deductible in whole or part would create a more level playing field.

[Dons flack jacket and runs very very fast]

Note:
I think FT SAHP's are great, I just couldn't do it mentally. Nor could I afford to do it. I don't mean to be derogatory about the "wiping bottoms" but it pisses me right off when I read about people on Mumsnet with PHD's or key skills like teaching and nursing who are stuck at home

The aging population as a whole needs to be sustained. We either need to support that with producing children [so not a lifestyle choice unless you have more than 2 imo] or increase immigration [always a popular solution in the UK]

Families need to find the childcare solution that fits their family, their type of employment, hours of work, their familial support network [or lack thereof] and one that takes into account that in a two parent family there may be significant disparity in income/responsibilities/flexibility. Making childcare tax deductible gives people the opportunity to source what works for them. The state or private sector can incentivise a standardized model with lower charges but ultimately if you don't fit that model currently you are out of options.

The govt approach at present is for the employer to provide significant flexibility to working parents, in many cases in small businesses to their detriment. I don't see Employer NI deductions incentivising part-time work or job shares as a small example of what might help?

As treadsoftly has said, given the choice to maintain the working age population by supporting families to who have children, increasing immigration or raising the retirement age, only one option is going to play out positively in an election year,

I see childminders have been mentioned. It's quite right that they are giving up in their thousands and I have no doubt this is contributing to the higher costs as parents have less choice of childcare provider.

It's interesting because I read two articles today in Child Care magazine from longtime professional childminders; one of whom is thinking of giving up and the other who is definitely giving up.

Their reasons come down to the total lack of respect from Government, media and general public for the very long hours and hard work they put in.

This current Government has been falling over itself to promote childcare in schools and part of that promotion has been to rubbish childminding, force childminder agencies through (because of course we can't possibly cope with running our own businesses) and to regard us as good only for clearing up the hours no-one else wants to provide for.

Even now, the default childcare option is a nursery with many parents not even considering a childminder, mainly because they know so little about the service we provide. Look at the poster earlier who thinks that childminders don't provide meals, when our social network pages are full of mealtime ideas and recipes shared!

It's a bit much a few posts up for someone to say if you work full time your child is with "strangers" for the first two years. Our first daily nanny (the cheapest option if you work full time and have 3 children under 5 as we did) stayed 10 years - longer than many a husband sticks around and plenty of children are with the same child minder or granny in those years.

I think they don't provide meals because the 5 available in my village do not. I know that others do. I was explaining my choice of nursery over childminder for expense wise to say that they were not cheaper!