‘Free’ child care
Discussion
lauda said:
What about the economic benefit of the nursery? Employment for the people working there, PAYE and NI on their earnings, employers’ NI, corporation tax on profits...
A fair chunk of the money that gets paid to the nursery by government will be recycled into the economy to the broader benefit of society.
Like I said - that’s probably a whole discussion on it’s own.A fair chunk of the money that gets paid to the nursery by government will be recycled into the economy to the broader benefit of society.
The intent of this thread is to discuss the concepts of ‘free’ and ‘the government pays’ - the childcare article was just one example of where such language was being used on the news this morning.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 18th January 10:55
BoRED S2upid said:
This ‘free’ childcare policy is going to have ramifications. The so called free hours are at a very low rate far lower than a nursery would charge yet minimum wage goes up and profits go down. It won’t be long until settings all turn around and say no we’re not offering it as they can’t cover their costs. Watch them moan then.
Our nursery are simply charging everyone for food now, which used to be included. So those without funding are subsidising those with it. The costs break down thus: we pay £900 a month for 4 days a week under the 15 hour scheme. Without funding that would be £1105. So that implies the nursery collect £205 a month (£2,460 a year) to cover 15 hours a week (780 hours per year). That's £3.15 an hour the nursery collects to cover all associated costs. They essentially ignore the 15 hours free bit and just pass on the money they collect in savings (less I'm sure a bit of administration fee).
The government is massively under-funding it if they expect nurseries not to charge additional fees. So I'm happy to pay a premium so my children get better quality of care. The nursery simply couldn't exist without top ups in one form or another.
I think there should be funded hours available to encourage people back to work, but it shouldn't be universally free. Keeps a career afloat, helps social development of children, taxes to the economy, etc, etc.
FYI Full week is £1,381 for over 2s, or £1,418 for under 2s. I don't have the costs for the 30 hour funding, but assume it's another £205 a month contribution fro the local government.
I am quite happy with the set up and is really the only assistance the Govt gives me. Child 1 is eligible for the "benefit" child 2 isn't old enough yet. Like the others here my wife's wage is nullified by the cost of childcare, but I wouldn't stop the kids from going. Its brilliant socially and developmentall for them, it gives Mum and Dad flexibility for days off and crucially if it were free for all it would be a race to the bottom.
Its our second largest outgoing, we're fortunate that we can ride the costs out and I am cognisant that others find it difficult. For those that need additional assistance I think there should be much more generosity from the scheme on the proviso the parents are working.
Its our second largest outgoing, we're fortunate that we can ride the costs out and I am cognisant that others find it difficult. For those that need additional assistance I think there should be much more generosity from the scheme on the proviso the parents are working.
daddy cool said:
matt666 said:
Because the more free or subsidised childcare there is the more people can work, therefore pay tax. Childcare fees are the equivalent to a fairly well paid job so a lot of people feel it’s not worth working for effectively nothing so they don’t, therefore paying no tax at all, which isn’t beneficial to anyone.
So it would be better if they didn't have kids, then they could work and pay tax, and there would be less drain on society, yes?
thole country", is you should be able to have children.Childcare shouldn't necessarily be free, but it should be considerably subsidised to the point that someone on minimum wage can afford it and still be better off than they would be if they were out of work.
Pay for some of it by reducing child benefit so we don't reward people to sit at home as a baby machine for a start.
Hayek said:
On the contrary, if they don't work and have time to look after their children it's better for their children which in the long run is better for everyone.
Indeed, I understand why some will want/need to carry on working but rather than 'farm out' your kids, why not look after them yourselves? especially if the cost of childcare is as much as, or more than a wage?We've got 4 kids and my Wife gave up work when our first was born to look after them, I'm convinced that they benefited by being looked after by a parent rather than a carer.
If you can't afford to have children and look after them properly then maybe you shouldn't have them, why should the government pick up the tab for looking after them?
catso said:
If you can't afford to have children and look after them properly then maybe you shouldn't have them, why should the government pick up the tab for looking after them?
Why should other people pick up the tab for your wife who isn't working? Should she not be working so as to contribute to the childrens education and NHS costs of her and them?See how that works? There's a middle ground and there should be analysis done to see what is best.
Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 18th January 11:08
Boydie88 said:
daddy cool said:
matt666 said:
Because the more free or subsidised childcare there is the more people can work, therefore pay tax. Childcare fees are the equivalent to a fairly well paid job so a lot of people feel it’s not worth working for effectively nothing so they don’t, therefore paying no tax at all, which isn’t beneficial to anyone.
So it would be better if they didn't have kids, then they could work and pay tax, and there would be less drain on society, yes?thole country", is you should be able to have children.The question is, should the government (taxpayers) fund my desire to have a happy dog by paying for my dogwalker while I'm at work, or do I decide that, on balance, I have to forfeit my desire to have a dog because I'm not able/willing to pay the associated costs at the current time, and its not fair that anyone else should pick up my bills?
catso said:
Indeed, I understand why some will want/need to carry on working but rather than 'farm out' your kids, why not look after them yourselves? especially if the cost of childcare is as much as, or more than a wage?
We've got 4 kids and my Wife gave up work when our first was born to look after them, I'm convinced that they benefited by being looked after by a parent rather than a carer.
If you can't afford to have children and look after them properly then maybe you shouldn't have them, why should the government pick up the tab for looking after them?
I hope your 4 don't grow up as ignorant as you.We've got 4 kids and my Wife gave up work when our first was born to look after them, I'm convinced that they benefited by being looked after by a parent rather than a carer.
If you can't afford to have children and look after them properly then maybe you shouldn't have them, why should the government pick up the tab for looking after them?
daddy cool said:
Surely I should be able to have a dog then, if the perk of living in our glorious country is that we can have things that we want?
The question is, should the government (taxpayers) fund my desire to have a happy dog by paying for my dogwalker while I'm at work, or do I decide that, on balance, I have to forfeit my desire to have a dog because I'm not able/willing to pay the associated costs at the current time, and its not fair that anyone else should pick up my bills?
If you're happy to see the native population plummet, then go ahead. All it will do is speed up the 'refugee' invasion of Europe.The question is, should the government (taxpayers) fund my desire to have a happy dog by paying for my dogwalker while I'm at work, or do I decide that, on balance, I have to forfeit my desire to have a dog because I'm not able/willing to pay the associated costs at the current time, and its not fair that anyone else should pick up my bills?
roachcoach said:
Why should other people pick up the tab for your wife who isn't working? Should she not be working so as to contribute to the childrens education and NHS costs?
See how that works? There's a middle ground and there should be analysis done to see what is best.
What about the tax/NI that I was (still am) paying and that she had paid previously?See how that works? There's a middle ground and there should be analysis done to see what is best.
catso said:
roachcoach said:
Why should other people pick up the tab for your wife who isn't working? Should she not be working so as to contribute to the childrens education and NHS costs?
See how that works? There's a middle ground and there should be analysis done to see what is best.
What about the tax/NI that I was (still am) paying and that she had paid previously?See how that works? There's a middle ground and there should be analysis done to see what is best.
Like I said, a middle ground should be found.
Did you refuse child benefit too? On the same "ethical" basis?
catso said:
TartanPaint said:
I hope your 4 don't grow up as ignorant as you.
Too late, I'm afraid. The youngest is 16 so they're probably all set in their ways by now. But so far, so good they all seem to be respectful despite having an ignoramus as a Father. 
Seriously though, I'm angry on this topic on behalf of others. My wife and I both have good jobs, and we can make it work. But I honestly look at our break-even decision, which requires a salary of over £30k to be totally wiped out by childcare costs for 2 kids, even with "free" hours. Many, many households have both incomes under £30k, and I have no idea how they manage. It's a ludicrous state of affairs that a skilled, educated workforce might be forced to have one parent at home. It should be a very easy choice to go back to work and be much better off for doing so.
Childcare costs have escalated because of the regulations imposed on carers. Now, I'm not for lowering quality of care, but other countries manage fine with far lower costs. We need an overhaul of the regulations, or failing that we need to subsidise childcare much, much more heavily for parents who are in work. The net effect is more people working and contributing, keeping their careers fresh, earning more over a lifetime as a result and paying more taxes to fund the support. I don't see how this taxpayer funding of working parents can be abused by the baby factories, as they would presumably fail to qualify by sitting at home on the sofa. In principle, the government agrees (free hours, tax free childcare etc) but the contributions are far too low in comparison with the rising costs of childcare. Either commit to the idea and fund it properly, or think of another way, but the current system is broken.
Boydie88 said:
If you're happy to see the native population plummet, then go ahead. All it will do is speed up the 'refugee' invasion of Europe.
We *NEED* the population to plummet, both nationally and globally.(Well, if you want the human species to continue. The other way of looking at it is that we are the worst thing that happened to the planet, and ideally a comet strike will finish us off and let the earth start over again)
roachcoach said:
Did you refuse child benefit too? On the same "ethical" basis?
No although I don't agree with the principle of it I would be stupid to refuse it when offered, just the same as I wouldn't offer to pay more tax if not required to do so. I live by the rules, I don't make them. I agree there needs to be a balance, not sure exactly what it is, I'm not a politician but I can see there are far too many people having kids they can't afford, I'm sure most of us would agree with that.
Saw on the news this morning about the 'free' childcare and people were moaning because they have to pay extra for food & nappies whilst their kids are there - FFS.
wc98 said:
speaking of "free" money . one of the charities is running a tv advert at the moment that says the government will "double your donation at no extra cost to yourself" if you donate before a certain cut off date. no mention of where the government gets the money from.
Reminds me the workplace pension launch, "you pay in, your boss pays in too" like its all free money...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff