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?

They shouldn't but it should be more tax deductible than at present. 2 reasons (economist perspective):
Multiplier effect
Human capital

Thank you for clearing that point, LadyRainicorn.

Have you all seen this? Free childcare in the US

Boffin I think that program sounds a lot like the head start program. I use their program but pay the full rate which is MUCH cheaper than any of the private daycare centers. I pay $1400 a month for DS compared to $2000-2200+ a month at any of the other places in town.

The staff are wonderful and it is cheaper because the daycare is in the ground level of a school building and care is provided at cost. There is a mix of people using it which is nice but I don't like that all the employees speak an awful lot of Spanish to the kids (only a concern because my son has a speech delay). Looking at the cost sheet I was given it would be free if our income was less than $45k per year and if our income is less than $100k per year it would be subsidized some other state grant that kicks in. Overall I think it is fair and $1400 a month for full cost is very reasonable for 50 hours of childcare a week.

Oh and DS's daycare offer breakfast, lunch and snacks. I dropped off two sippy cups a couple of months ago and they wash them there. All I bring in each week is bed linen. Left overs from their lunch (which is cooked each day and in the morning the glorious smell of food wafts down the hallway) are sent home with the kids whose parents are in need. It's a fab program.

What exactly is wrong with a daycare owner profiting from their business? Anyway, the margins are very slim. There is a lot more to the overheads than just paying staff wages.

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

Who says they are stuck at home? They might actually enjoy being a SAHP and find it very rewarding. I have "key skills" and I am a SAHP, I don't feel I am robbing the workforce anymore than I would be robbing my children of my presence. I don't feel stuck or trapped. I am not even at home fully by choice (one DC very complex disability) but I much prefer it to being at work and dedicating my days to others.

Spot on Isit, don't we get a choice?

No way on earth would two wp have been right for me,my dc or family.I had 7 years off and have now gone back as a TA(froth away). I absolutely love my rewarding valuable job and it suits me,my dc and family down to the ground.

Lots of us don't want stress after dc,we don't want tiny dc in childcare, we want to spend time with our dc and we want a happy family life.Above all else we want what is best for our dc.

Soooo sick of posters who think they have the right to speak for the remake population as a whole.

female

You cannot look at the cost of childcare without looking at the disproportionate amount that it takes up for working parents on an average salary let alone those on a minimum wage. Parents are tax payers, the children they are raising will one day be the next working generation and paying your pension.

I really do prefer Sweden's take on childcare where the fees are capped.

You cannot look at the cost of childcare without looking at the disproportionate amount that it takes up for working parents on an average salary let alone those on a minimum wage.

This is one way of looking at it. But you could also look at childcare as a relatively short-term, predictable expense that could be planned/budgeted for as the family sees fit, e.g. SAHP, nanny, childminder, nursery, whatever. Which is why I think it's a pointless transfer of money from household to state and back to the household again (now, earmarked) that could better be managed within the household.

That does not take into account that however accounted for it is a large proportion of net salary and for many a sacrifice has to be made in the way of, quite often, a parent needing to stay home, mostly the mother. When LO was at nursery his fees per month were greater or equal to what the average worker would take home. Perhaps those on moderate salaries should just not have children? Two years is a long time in terms of mortgage/rent and living costs.

The sticking point is that parents should have equal rights to work regardless of finances, and in many places this just isn't an option. The onus shouldn't be on the parent to make it affordable, it should already be so, but I suspect we won't be agreeing on this matter anytime soon.

Perhaps those on moderate salaries should just not have children?

I said upthread a bit that this makes sense only if means-tested.

They are means testing the new childcare support (which could be as much as £6k from the state for 3 children in full time care costing £30k a year). I would not get it. My daughter would not get it.

goodbye- childcare costs are not short term though, especially if you have more than one. One of the shocks has been the local school in the village I grew up in has no after care provision. School is 815-3pm. At best one parent is looking at either doing shift work, which is generally lower paid, or working part time. As it is my dad looks after some of the local high school students through a program he set up via his stables. All started through a school friend who couldn't afford to go back to work after her husband left her. My dad has been shocked at how this disproportionately affects women. It was a shame his badgering of George Osborne wasn't recorded. He was fantastic when he asked his wife if her husband tended to the DC in the night, took them to school, if school had aftercare and if it was affordable and if he did 50% of the housework. Wife went very quiet and told her husband 'He has a point.'

For goodness sake of course you are going to gave to fund 2 or 3 hours a day at school age.Who on earth else do you think is responsible? Surely people factor this in before having dc.

Do people honestly think you glide through the raising children years financially comfortable feeling no pain?

Get real having kids hurts and you will have years of austerity before they leave home.Presuming you're just going to carry on as before after having kids is utter madness.

Petit - you say you are a teaching assistant so your hours mirror school hours so I presume you don't have the same issue as other parents who don't have such good hours.

I am happy you have found something that works for you but there are plenty of families where parents don't have a choice. They can't work because their job wouldn't bring in enough to cover childcare. If you work anything more than 20 hours a week outside of the school where your DC attend you will need childcare if you can't split the work between parents.

I am very happy for you that you have found something that works for your family but with 70% of families in poverty and childcare being the biggest expense in the first 10 years if both parents are working, it makes a lot of sense to help parents.

Also, are you saving into a pension? Most parents are not. This current system is going to create a huge problem down the road as my generation are going to work until we die given the burdens placed on us. Akin to what I would expect in a third world country and no the UK.

I leave later than chuck out time and get in early(teacher habits) so same hours as an office with a 45 min journey after.

Those on very low wages I have sympathy with,others I don't.

Any help from the tax payer needs serious means testing.

Nope! You make 'em , you pay for 'em

Agree with you OP. I have no idea why people expect a faceless bureaucracy to be so involved in what is essentially a family matter.

The second reason is that govt debt is huge and growing and the debt is leaving a massive problem for our children. Expecting a govt on its knees to give out even more £ and more subsidies on the basis of principle or it being a nice way to help people? Nuts.

A question I cannot find the answer to.

How much does the government pay in child benefit each year in the UK?

The total sum or near as dammit.

Anyone?

I don't understand why there is a particular issue with childcare being 'subsidised' by the government, any more than there is ever an issue with anything else the government spends money on.

Because education and health are basic needs but funding somebody else to look after children you choose to have isn't.

The extortionate cost of childcare in this country is largely down to state regulation. And the state are teh ones who benefit from the huge investment in the next generation that parents ake. So as well as the economic and social cases for subsidising, I think there is a moral case to be made that the state ought to subsidise childcare.

Apologies for typos. Just woken up and posting without my reading glasses...