critique my tax idea for parents
Discussion
sneijder said:
RealSquirrels said:
5 days a week for 148 euros a month down the road from me...
Same price in Norway, there's a bit of a shortage of spaces, which means most of Kindergardens are brand new.Proper job too, my daughters had a trip to the big park in Oslo and also the library this week.
I have cousins in the UK with daughters the same age, I have no idea how they cope to be honest. One of the mums is doing exactly as OP describes, working and paying child care and breaking even.
The OP's idea is terrible, and the taxpayer should not be subsidizing childcare.
What astute people who want to earn money would do is put together a business plan that provided it for 30 quid a day and make it possible for parents to afford it. At that point it becomes worth working, so the childcare business would flourish.
The reality though is that you get what you pay for, you don't get 5 star service for 2 star money.
What astute people who want to earn money would do is put together a business plan that provided it for 30 quid a day and make it possible for parents to afford it. At that point it becomes worth working, so the childcare business would flourish.
The reality though is that you get what you pay for, you don't get 5 star service for 2 star money.
speedy_thrills said:
I wonder if the long term economic implications of having parents at home instead of going to daycare are overlooked? There is a raft of interesting research showing significant lifelong benefits of spending early years with parents.
depends on what the parents are like, I suppose, as well sitting at home with mum watching cbeebies all day while she tidies up, versus group learning and play activities with motivated kindergarten staff, interaction with other kids
the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" the kindergarten is the modern day village life for kids, to my mind
there are economic implications of encouraging people to have kids, especially people other than the unemployable underclass
someone has to fill all the jobs in the future, if every middle income family only has one kid, what do you want, more immigration?
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Wednesday 19th June 08:23
Hugo a Gogo said:
depends on what the parents are like, I suppose, as well
sitting at home with mum watching cbeebies all day while she tidies up, versus group learning and play activities with motivated kindergarten staff, interaction with other kids
the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" the kindergarten is the modern day village life for kids, to my mind
there are economic implications of encouraging people to have kids, especially people other than the unemployable underclass
someone has to fill all the jobs in the future, if every middle income family only has one kid, what do you want, more immigration?
Of course it depends on what the parents and the nursery are like. Not all nurseries offer 'group learning and play activities with motivated staff' - there are good and bad, like everywhere in life.sitting at home with mum watching cbeebies all day while she tidies up, versus group learning and play activities with motivated kindergarten staff, interaction with other kids
the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" the kindergarten is the modern day village life for kids, to my mind
there are economic implications of encouraging people to have kids, especially people other than the unemployable underclass
someone has to fill all the jobs in the future, if every middle income family only has one kid, what do you want, more immigration?
If the government were involved, say providing 'value' childcare with a parallel system of 'private' nurseries that cost parents more, where do you suppose the 'motivated staff' would gravitate and who would make do with the bored, disinterested, hungover teenagers?
Some of the postings are getting (predictably) confrontational. Plus ca change etc.
Whilst having children is, for many, a win-win situation long term, it is a financial squeeze if you're on average wages. Particularly in the UK. Also many people just are not suited to childcare (the same for nursing, sewer maintenance and foreign policy implementation, to name but three).
What is getting worse, though, IMHO is the nursery care situation - whether you agree with it or not. This industry is heavily regulated (preventing entry to market) and requires rigorous oversight (heaping on admin costs) resulting in bluddy expensive product with no guarantee as to quality. Pretty much the antithesis of a free market approach.
It's the same in education - you can opt to pay through the nose but it is no guarantee of quality. Or rely on shoddy state provision and take pot luck.
Oh, and look - health care also follows this remarkable example.
Why does this pattern appear so often?
Whilst having children is, for many, a win-win situation long term, it is a financial squeeze if you're on average wages. Particularly in the UK. Also many people just are not suited to childcare (the same for nursing, sewer maintenance and foreign policy implementation, to name but three).
What is getting worse, though, IMHO is the nursery care situation - whether you agree with it or not. This industry is heavily regulated (preventing entry to market) and requires rigorous oversight (heaping on admin costs) resulting in bluddy expensive product with no guarantee as to quality. Pretty much the antithesis of a free market approach.
It's the same in education - you can opt to pay through the nose but it is no guarantee of quality. Or rely on shoddy state provision and take pot luck.
Oh, and look - health care also follows this remarkable example.
Why does this pattern appear so often?
Countdown said:
If we sack the public sector why would we need ANY tax at all?
Your always going to have a bit of administrivia and nuclear weapons of course. Just in case some race with a different imaginary friend wants to impose their s
t on us. MPs and their expenses. Dancing wes and fripperies, chaps with swords etc. Couldn't have a country without chaps with swords, wouldn't do at all. 
Mark Benson said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
depends on what the parents are like, I suppose, as well
sitting at home with mum watching cbeebies all day while she tidies up, versus group learning and play activities with motivated kindergarten staff, interaction with other kids
the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" the kindergarten is the modern day village life for kids, to my mind
there are economic implications of encouraging people to have kids, especially people other than the unemployable underclass
someone has to fill all the jobs in the future, if every middle income family only has one kid, what do you want, more immigration?
Of course it depends on what the parents and the nursery are like. Not all nurseries offer 'group learning and play activities with motivated staff' - there are good and bad, like everywhere in life.sitting at home with mum watching cbeebies all day while she tidies up, versus group learning and play activities with motivated kindergarten staff, interaction with other kids
the old saying "it takes a village to raise a child" the kindergarten is the modern day village life for kids, to my mind
there are economic implications of encouraging people to have kids, especially people other than the unemployable underclass
someone has to fill all the jobs in the future, if every middle income family only has one kid, what do you want, more immigration?
If the government were involved, say providing 'value' childcare with a parallel system of 'private' nurseries that cost parents more, where do you suppose the 'motivated staff' would gravitate and who would make do with the bored, disinterested, hungover teenagers?
our kindergarten here in Germany is a state one, and it's fantastic
i don't really understand how they do it, they have better infrastructure (esp rail), more university and science funding, basically free childcare, the state pension is VERY generous, uneployment benefit is at 2/3rds of your salary for the first 12 months... and i don't really feel that I earn less here than in the UK after tax (tax/social security is a fair bit higher here, but no council tax) because the wages are quite a bit higher.
WeirdNeville said:
As a full time stay at home dad:
We "did the maths" and could have scraped by in the UK. I could cover mortgage and living with our son, With child care at £55 a day it didn't make much difference if my wife worked 2 or 5 days a week, with 3 days work being the sweet spot earning her an extra £500 a month over not working. We'd have had a slightly less crappy existence than on one income, but we weren't sure it was worth not having contact with the lad.
It's all very well saying "don't have kids if you can't afford them" but you'd expect a working couple bringing in £80k a year to be able to afford them, no? We're not extravagant: a holiday a year, no new cars ever (no car more than £5k ever), a decent but far from plush house in the South East.
Her career had legs, mine was dying at the hands of the government (along with my desire to keep doing it).
So we took a third option.
We are now in Australia. I'm the full time dad, she out earns us both back in the UK doing what she's good at. The Lad has had 18 months and counting of full time parental upbringing although he goes into nursery one day a week for social contact and learning (~£60/day). I'm looking for work (in my own sweet time) but don't want to give up the time I'm spending with my son unless the price is right.
That's the cost to the UK as I see it: It has lost a police officer and a hydrogeologist to another country (you need hydrogeologists to ensure safe drinking water and prevent flooding: £35k after ten years in the UK, £100k+ over here). It was getting a fair whack of tax out of us, it's not getting anything now. In my immediate and fairly diverse friendship group, 3 others have emigrated in the last year (2 with kids) and 2 more are considering it in the next year.
So, the rich get richer, the poor crank out as many kids as the NHS can cope with, and the middle fk off to try and better themselves where their skills are valued.
Totally agree. I'm looking at Canada for this reason right now.We "did the maths" and could have scraped by in the UK. I could cover mortgage and living with our son, With child care at £55 a day it didn't make much difference if my wife worked 2 or 5 days a week, with 3 days work being the sweet spot earning her an extra £500 a month over not working. We'd have had a slightly less crappy existence than on one income, but we weren't sure it was worth not having contact with the lad.
It's all very well saying "don't have kids if you can't afford them" but you'd expect a working couple bringing in £80k a year to be able to afford them, no? We're not extravagant: a holiday a year, no new cars ever (no car more than £5k ever), a decent but far from plush house in the South East.
Her career had legs, mine was dying at the hands of the government (along with my desire to keep doing it).
So we took a third option.
We are now in Australia. I'm the full time dad, she out earns us both back in the UK doing what she's good at. The Lad has had 18 months and counting of full time parental upbringing although he goes into nursery one day a week for social contact and learning (~£60/day). I'm looking for work (in my own sweet time) but don't want to give up the time I'm spending with my son unless the price is right.
That's the cost to the UK as I see it: It has lost a police officer and a hydrogeologist to another country (you need hydrogeologists to ensure safe drinking water and prevent flooding: £35k after ten years in the UK, £100k+ over here). It was getting a fair whack of tax out of us, it's not getting anything now. In my immediate and fairly diverse friendship group, 3 others have emigrated in the last year (2 with kids) and 2 more are considering it in the next year.
So, the rich get richer, the poor crank out as many kids as the NHS can cope with, and the middle f
k off to try and better themselves where their skills are valued.AJS- said:
oyster said:
I get your sentiment, but you're approaching this from a theoretical point of view rather than a pragmatic point of view.
Of course I would love it if there was a flat tax rate of 20% and benefits were trimmed right back so that the state was smaller. It would be great if the middle class could make more individual decisions on which to spend their greater take-home income on.
But that isn't the reality now, and I doubt it's the reality in the future either.
And so if we assume that the government will spend money anyway (again, I ask you to be a realist for a bit!) - it would be better to spend that money on ensuring there are more Philips and Sophies born than there are Tylers and Waynes.
You can always find a "pragmatic" reason for taxes, benefits, subsidies and allowances. It still leads us ultimately to a convoluted mess.Of course I would love it if there was a flat tax rate of 20% and benefits were trimmed right back so that the state was smaller. It would be great if the middle class could make more individual decisions on which to spend their greater take-home income on.
But that isn't the reality now, and I doubt it's the reality in the future either.
And so if we assume that the government will spend money anyway (again, I ask you to be a realist for a bit!) - it would be better to spend that money on ensuring there are more Philips and Sophies born than there are Tylers and Waynes.
It's the principled decision to adhere to a correct theory that produces better outcomes.
singlecoil said:
fbrs said:
oyster said:
Another one who has missed the thrust of what the OP is saying.
It is in the interest of ALL of us to get mothers back working.
is it? how does it make sense for a mother to replace someone else in work?It is in the interest of ALL of us to get mothers back working.
Plus, and this is purely anecdotal, I suspect that mothers who really want to return to work are likely to be well educated and driven individuals. Their loss to the workforce may be felt more than the average worker.
GavinPearson said:
The OP's idea is terrible, and the taxpayer should not be subsidizing childcare.
What astute people who want to earn money would do is put together a business plan that provided it for 30 quid a day and make it possible for parents to afford it. At that point it becomes worth working, so the childcare business would flourish.
The reality though is that you get what you pay for, you don't get 5 star service for 2 star money.
That might have happened had Clegg not been bamboozled by stay at home mums campaigning against it.What astute people who want to earn money would do is put together a business plan that provided it for 30 quid a day and make it possible for parents to afford it. At that point it becomes worth working, so the childcare business would flourish.
The reality though is that you get what you pay for, you don't get 5 star service for 2 star money.
oyster said:
singlecoil said:
fbrs said:
oyster said:
Another one who has missed the thrust of what the OP is saying.
It is in the interest of ALL of us to get mothers back working.
is it? how does it make sense for a mother to replace someone else in work?It is in the interest of ALL of us to get mothers back working.
oyster said:
Plus, and this is purely anecdotal, I suspect that mothers who really want to return to work are likely to be well educated and driven individuals. Their loss to the workforce may be felt more than the average worker.
One would expect that driven individuals would choose not to have children in the first place. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff