Our childcare is the second most expensive in the world

[BlodynFioled]

Our childcare sector is the second most expensive in the world and is forcing many women out of the workforce. This is definitely worth the read:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/graziadaily.co.uk/amp/life/parenting/childcare-campaign/?fbclid=IwAR3hf7N4vZs--PQpvL89dP7PHcyryGzxcRWgREeQn5RkbMMBGlIQjQDB7bI

[quote DocsRock]@OnlyFoolsnMothers I do understand what you're saying but by that argument, committing a crime means its inevitable you're going to end up with the punishment of prison?

On the other hand, it's people's choice to have children. Growing old isn't a choice [/quote]
So you don’t agree with the state paying for schools?
Or is it just nursery education you think the government shouldn’t contribute to?

@GappyValley I didn't say I don't agree with it. I was just saying that's another way of looking at it. Apologies if that wasn't clear enough :)

Supporting yourself is supporting yourself- if you have a house why shouldn’t it pay for your care- I do get that children are a choice but why should you choose to sit on an asset and have others fund your care (for no greater good)

@OnlyFoolsnMothers but surely that's also what people pay into the system for too?

I just find it very unfair that those who work and save money, buy and maintain their house etc are basically penalised for being sensible whilst those who rent, are on a low income or choose not to save get their care heavily subsidised?

I live in a major commuter town.

A day's nursery care is the same as a day return ticket to London.

I know which is the bigger rip off.

[quote DocsRock]@OnlyFoolsnMothers but surely that's also what people pay into the system for too?

I just find it very unfair that those who work and save money, buy and maintain their house etc are basically penalised for being sensible whilst those who rent, are on a low income or choose not to save get their care heavily subsidised?[/quote]
You aren’t paying into a old age care plan, you pay tax just like the young, and the retired of today reaped benefits the younger generations could only dream of.
That’s life, a civilised society helps those less fortunate/ able etc.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers But part of the tax is towards the 'old age care plan' is it not?

People today have benefits that future generations would only dream of. That's the way things are! 😊

Less fortunate, fair enough. People who choose to not save etc despite being able to, absolutely not fair enough.

@motogogo

Flip this around, why should I as a tax payer subsidise your childcare? Some countries do but is it in the interest of children because it means they are less likely to have a stay at home parent or parents who work part time.

Like many I stayed at home until my kids were at school, deliberately close together, we lived (rented) in a small house and had one old car, no gym and a payg mobile, we didn't eat out much etc. You can't have life of two incomes once you have children, they are a choice

Because as a tax payer, you'll end up in a better funded society if women don't take 5 years out of the workforce, and because those children will be paying for your NHs care and pension in future, and they will also be more able to contribute if they didn't grow up in poverty or stuck in abusive situations where their mother didn't have the financial ability to leave. Because home with a parent is often the best place for young children, but not for the poorest and most challenged families, and better childcare leads to better outcomes.

[quote DocsRock]@OnlyFoolsnMothers But part of the tax is towards the 'old age care plan' is it not?

People today have benefits that future generations would only dream of. That's the way things are! 😊

Less fortunate, fair enough. People who choose to not save etc despite being able to, absolutely not fair enough.[/quote]
What benefits are better today?

Tax went towards the elderly at the time not a plan for the future.

Well that’s how tax works and society best works. equally a nurse who was never able to save gets put in a care home of the state vs someone who inherited their wealth refusing to sell their home to pay for their care home. Poorer doesn’t mean lazy.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers Where did I mention poorer means lazy?

@OnlyFoolsnMothers and not every home owner inherits there house.

I don't manage to put a lot of savings away each month but I always make sure I manage to save some. Quite a few people I know don't have savings, claiming they can't afford to save yet pre Covid, wen't out every Friday and Saturday night.

Because you referenced those who scrimped and saved to buy their homes, my point was no one is going to look into savings and how they were earned, as to who should pay for their care. A decent society supports those that don’t have. I still can’t see the issue with people paying for their care with their own asset- id far rather pay extra towards childcare, even before I had kids

@OnlyFoolsnMothers So basically, nobody should save, nobody should own a home as eventually, you'll have to sell it anyway to pay for care?

Like I said before, having a child is a choice for most people (I accept that situations happen where it isn't a choice). Therefore you make sure you can provide for your child. We don't get any help with childcare til our baby is 3 years old. Yet somebody I know who doesn't work gets 15 hours free/funded (whatever it is) hours at nursery for their child who is 2.

[quote DocsRock]@OnlyFoolsnMothers So basically, nobody should save, nobody should own a home as eventually, you'll have to sell it anyway to pay for care?

Like I said before, having a child is a choice for most people (I accept that situations happen where it isn't a choice). Therefore you make sure you can provide for your child. We don't get any help with childcare til our baby is 3 years old. Yet somebody I know who doesn't work gets 15 hours free/funded (whatever it is) hours at nursery for their child who is 2.[/quote]
Yes I too didn’t get any free hours until my child was 3, but I don’t begrudge children who grow up in poorer households getting additional hours. It isn’t a great life on benefits, if it was why don’t you and I do it?
Of course people should save, primarily most do for a better life presently, - saving sadly is a luxury for many who would struggle to find the money if their boiler or car were to break down tomorrow.

[quote DocsRock]@OnlyFoolsnMothers So basically, nobody should save, nobody should own a home as eventually, you'll have to sell it anyway to pay for care?

Like I said before, having a child is a choice for most people (I accept that situations happen where it isn't a choice). Therefore you make sure you can provide for your child. We don't get any help with childcare til our baby is 3 years old. Yet somebody I know who doesn't work gets 15 hours free/funded (whatever it is) hours at nursery for their child who is 2.[/quote]
If she gets free hours for a 2 year old, there's a reason. They put that in to help families on very low incomes and for children who are more likely to benefit from early support, and the eligibility rules are pretty tight.

The Early Years Alliance recently published some very interesting information it has finally obtained from the Department of Education.

It seems that, in 2015, the Government predicted that it would cost £2bn to fully fund the Early Years sector by 2020. This would result in the funding rate given to LAs for 3 and 4 year olds being set at £7.49 per hour.
In reality, they provided just £300m of annual funding: the rate set was only £4.89 per hour.

According to the EYA:
"The government knew that the proposed funding levels, alongside the introduction of the 30 hours, would lead to increased costs for parents of younger children."

www.eyalliance.org.uk/freedom-information-investigation-findings

Two year old funding.....the aim is to provide opportunities that break the chain of reliance on benefits. By supporting early brain development children are more likely to overcome difficulties like speech delays, statistics show children who have good experiences at 2 are more likely to get good grades at 16. Early support saves government money in the long run. It is not there for the parents benefit.