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'm sure when I was younger you could get into a council run nursery (which everyone wanted) I wonder why the council no longer provide them? It could be subsided (most councils would already have suitable property) and it wouldn't be profit seeking.

1. It's nigh on impossible to budget properly for childcare at the rate fees are escalating.
2. Fees escalate because of external factors such as the imposition of minimum wage legislation, changes to tax and National Insurance employers' contributions, commercial rates, insurance costs, red tape costs and so on. These are partially offset by tax credits and so on for some groups and not others, but in reality this also complicates things and the market can never really find its own level.
3. When I had my first DC practically none of these things applied because there was a lot more informal and ad hoc childcare that was more or less unregulated, leaving parents to decide what they wanted and needed, so as a proportion of salary, childcare costs seemed substantially lower.
4. Interestingly I didn't see much difference in standards of childcare at this time, despite the fact it was a lot cheaper in real terms. In fact, I think regulatory compliance sometimes disguises otherwise poor and relatively unloving care.
5. There's a strong societal case for capping fees, as then more female workplace participation happens and this leads to economic growth (as the Bank of England have reported).

Cheap childcare isn't in the best interest of the children themselves.

My mother had no family support at all in the 70's and had to work. She paid a neighbour to look after us. She got no help with childcare costs at all. So there have always been mothers who had to pay for childcare.
But taxes should give help with childcare, because we should as a society support people when they need extra help. Whether because they are children, are parents, are elderly or disabled. Sadly this idea of supporting each other seems to be becoming less popular.

But taxes should give help with childcare, because we should as a society support people when they need extra help. Whether because they are children, are parents, are elderly or disabled. Sadly this idea of supporting each other seems to be becoming less popular.

I can't agree with lumping child/adult/and (to a lesser extent) elderly in with disabled. The former are predictable life cycles that we'll all go through; the latter is truly a stroke of bad luck and a very sensible use of tax money.

Few of us can afford to meet all the costs of our life cycle throughout all of our life. I am disabled and will probably die young, so I could probably afford to support myself through my short old age. Someone who lives over 100 years of age is not going to be able to afford to do that, unless they are very wealthy.

Exactly I'd rather taxes went to those who really need it rather than to those who simply need to tighten their belts and get through the tears of austerity having children brings.

If you don't want to fund a sahp or childcare don't have dc or limit yourself to the dc you can afford.

Families on very small wages I don't mind helping but as regards everybody sorry I do and I think it's a luxury we can't afford.

But the rules that make it expensive are government imposed.

So the government can do what they like and parents just have to suck it up?

I also don't understand with tax deductions how 'the taxpayer' is paying it. Without it there would be less tax paid.

Feckeggblue, there certainly were council-run nurseries not all that long ago, and Surestart too - my 5 yr old went to one. Do you really not know what's happened to them? Government cuts. In the town I used to live there's only one out of 6 or so Surestart nurseries left, and that's because it's too small to be privately profitable: they're just waiting for the hammer to fall.

This is what happens when central government make public service cuts. The public services die off. Worse is to come too if the tories get back in. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said somewhere that the cuts they are planning will 'fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state'.

Gibbering, it's worse than that. The Government moved in where previously there had been private providers, undercut the private providers through the use of subsidies for the first three years, private providers could not compete and went out of business, and then the Government started closing its own facilities down, leaving whole areas without any childcare whatsoever. A more preposterous waste of time and money and energy I can't imagine. And parents got little if any say in this.

BTW in response to the point about cheap childcare being not in the interests of children, you cannot equate cost with quality, and sometimes cheap or even free can be perfectly adequate. However the Government has basically closed off that option too thanks to OFSTED regulatory intervention, which means all the little ad hoc schemes that were run basically are required to become registered now, leaving parents to fork out for commercial care, often run by chains, which can be absolutely appalling. In one case locally, where there is a large nursery run by a large chain on the site of a teaching hospital, the horror stories I was hearing in a professional capacity were of such magnitude that I reported them on H&S grounds. That was one of the most expensive nurseries for miles around. Believe me, money is only the smallest part of the equation. If someone sees children as a commodity or lifestyle accessory, and not being worthy of the same dignity and respect as the rest of us, that's when disasters happen. I fear that when people state 'If you can't afford them, don't have them' and so on, as if parents had some sort of crystal ball, or all parents were millionaires before even considering procreation, we would a) end up like Japan with not enough children being born to keep society intact, and b) become a very shrewish, dysfunctional and self-centred society indeed (at this point when ranting, I usually invoke the P D James novel 'Children of Men').

"Worthy of dignity and respect" and you say adequate is good enough and criticise Ofsted regulations which are in the best interests of children.

It may be inconvenient but risk assessments,properties of good enough quality,highly educated staff,quality planned care etc,etc are in the best interests of children and it costs.

Would you want below par unregulated schools in the interest of being cheap?No thought not.Why should babies and toddlers have anything other than the best just because their parents have to fund their provision?

I remember the council run sure start nurseries. My eldest child went to one. They were very hard to get places at as the care was often much better than the private sector and a slightly lower cost. They were not mega cheap though - 12 years ago I used to pay £23 a day for the sure start nursery place and the private nurseries nearby were charging between £25 and £30 per day. The great thing about the sure start nurseries was that they were happy to care for children with additional needs, even my child's very significant additional needs. The care they provided was excellent.

As soon as Tories came in the sure start nurseries started to be closed down.

I forgot: some areas do have state nurseries of sort for children from aged 3. All manchester city council schools have state nurseries attached and they are free for all children from the term after their third birthday. They usually operate for the same hours as the schools that they are attached to (although some only offer half days). The thinking in some inner city and deprived areas is that they need state nurseries for all children to improve outcomes (it's almost as if they don't trust parents who live in poorer areas).

The question shouldn't be 'why do tax payers have to pay for childcare' but 'why is childcare so expensive that people need help to pay it'
When you start saying that people can only have children if you can afford the extortionate cost then you restrict breeding to only the very rich. You effectively say the poor and working classes shouldn't be allowed to breed.
If only the upper classes can breed then who is there left to sweep the streets and work in the shops?

I'm very late to this, but I am fully in favour of childcare being free or heavily subsidised for parents who both work. They should get the number of hours they work plus commuting time paid for. I don't think it should be related to the currently free 15 hours because that's about early yeast education, not childcare.

I think people should be allowed free childcare because it would encourage people only to have the children they could afford, there would be no need for child benefit or child tax credits. People would go back to the jobs they had before having children, as maternity rights allow for, and they would have to pay for their children out of the income they have.

We'd save money on benefits, we wouldn't have this crazy situation where people can't afford to work because of childcare costs, and people would genuinely be better off in work. Women would be better able to hold onto their careers, and it would create employment in nurseries.

That's also not to say that only the poor should do those jobs. However as the educational options tend to be to a lower standard those jobs more often than not are filled by the working classes.

Ofsted is meaningless, and cost is not a proxy for quality of care. I know too many nurseries that pass muster when it comes to inspections but which risk children's safety in alarming ways when nobody is looking. For example the chain nursery where they sat toddlers on the floor to eat their snacks and did not supervise them properly, leading to a child choking to death on an apple. Or the chain nursery that was reported to Ofsted for repeatedly opening with 50+ children in attendance and one manager plus one part time unqualified assistant in charge, as the other staff routinely phoned in sick and no cover was organised. Or the private nursery where the owner's 14 year old son was left supervising 20+ over twos in the garden as they were short staffed. Or the private nursery which had to be closed for two days for professional deep cleaning as two children ended up in hospital. Or the university nursery where local residents used to hear the children crying as though ignored and neglected.

Then there is the more routine. The childminder who would show Ofsted the lovely garden that her charges were not allowed to play in when Ofsted weren't there. Or the childminder who didn't put the children in the cots upstairs to sleep but put them all to sleep on the sofa with the telly on, as putting them in their cots and settling them would involve effort. The nursery where black or disabled kids never managed to get places. All rated Good or Excellent by Ofsted. All very expensive. And all run by miserable fuckers who patently were either incompetent or saw children as a commodity rather than people (or both).

LePetit, you have believed the marketing myth that if it is expensive it must be good. It is not. Expensive usually indicates higher profit margins, little more.

You answered it yourself op. If it keeps the parent in the workforce by making childcare affordable then financially it eventually benefits all - parent pays tax and will stay highly employable.

Unfortunately childcare is so expensive and housing is even more, I think many parents still cant afford to work once they have children, specially if there are 2 children or more, so one parent needs to stay at home.

If parents also had to pay for childrens education and health then we would mostly be in the workhouse except for royalty and the very wealthy. Where you draw the line is political not logical.

I hadn't gone as far as that, Boffin. V interesting. The problem of short-term party politics over-ruling long-term social planning.

Public services do generally offer better care than private because the only motive in private sector is profit-seeking. This rhetoric of our times that the private sector always overrules public has to stop. Economics are not everything and some things - the health and happiness of our kids in this instance - really are worth paying for.

Ptolemys, that sounds like common sense and it's broadly the argument that persuaded the oecd to put out their report about redistribution growing the economy and inequality harming it. Why on earth isno one at the top listening? What does it take to get them off their narrow 2d track and look at the fires around them?

No I didn't know that- I don't have children in childcare and I assumed council nurseries would be cost neutral rather to the government to be honest

Boffin I have an early years degree,worked in most sectors and was an Outstanding provider - cheap childcare is not in the best interests of children.

The Lyn Truss debacle on here illustrated that the vast maj of parents don't actually want cheap childcare and higher ratios.

I am in total agreement with Boffin. DS is in one of the cheapest daycare in town. They have a team which is 2nd to none. Yes there is a lot of Spanish but thats only an issue for DS because of him and his unique needs. DD thrived in a similar environment. The speech therapist on staff has been working with him. No other daycare center in town has a speech therapist or developmental behavioral specialist on staff.

Cost of childcare has no relation to the quality in my experience. In fact I have found the cheaper places to be better as they do more interactive activities such as circle time because they require less resources.

I do question the ratio's in the UK. Every other country has higher ratio's compared to the UK. A ratio of 1:3 for under 2's is crazy. DS (18months - 2.5) has a ratio of 1:6 which works perfectly and DD has a ratio of 1:8 (2.5 to school). These ratios work for other Western countries such as Denmark, France, Germany, Canada and the US. They can't all be wrong and the UK right?

Petit I got the impression that those who were vocal in opposition of higher ratios were those who have decided to stay home with their DC and were from the middle class/ lower upper class. Working parents want more affordable childcare. I really feel for working parents who are lower income. They should be getting far more help than they are. Quite frankly I think the childcare policy in the UK is one of the factors that build up a significant hindrance to social mobility. I say this as someone who is fortunate to be in the upper range and would like to see the doors open for others.

No it wasn't, it was pretty much everybody, particularly the parents with children in nurseries and frankly I don't blame them.No way would I have wanted higher ratios for mine.I always kept my numbers below what I could have done for quality of care.I knew my charges had a better deal with lower numbers.