‘Free’ child care
Discussion
yajeed said:
It's a terrible system.
A couple with one partner earning 100,000 and the other minimum wage don't qualify.
A couple earning 99,999 each do.
That's in addition to paying the most % tax of anyone in the UK (potentially - if earning 100-120k)
Indeed - It does seem rather "unfair" at the limits.A couple with one partner earning 100,000 and the other minimum wage don't qualify.
A couple earning 99,999 each do.
That's in addition to paying the most % tax of anyone in the UK (potentially - if earning 100-120k)
For me, I have put one through Nursery (10 months to 4 1/2) and benefited from the 15 hours "free" for the last few terms and the other has not quite reached the 15/30 hours "free" age yet. The nursery that we had them both in since 10 months old has not confirmed that they will do the 30 hours yet or not. I'd be pretty annoyed if they didn't as I have given them the best part of £75K after tax in the last 4 years.
During that time, the Mrs stayed employed / employable, continued to pay into a pension and covered the cost of the Nursery. In some ways, it feels like "working for nothing", but really, remaining employed during these years will make her/us much better off long term imho.
At our peak, we were £1980 per month (with the generous 10% sibling discount) that the Nursery offers.....
On the plus side, University looks cheap......
daddy cool said:
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)
catso said:
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.
TartanPaint said:
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.
I was going to make this point, the place the kids are sent is ofstead accredited and inspected and effectively has a loose curriculum and quite a high ratio of staff to kids in my mind. Now obviously this is great, but the kids are getting much more structured education than they would if I had to look after them every day and this pushes costs up. There is a case to be made for a half-price basic option that more people can actually afford, but imagine the issues with that; it's a social mobility own goal to effectively start education earlier for those that can afford it. And anyway a capitalist argument might find that the education benefit pays for itself eventually anyway through a better workforce and more tax being paid. Who knows.
At least with Childcare Vouchers thrown into the mix you can hide a decent chunk of the cost so it doesn't hurt as much when the bill comes every month. We're not in too bad a place really though as we can use Grandparents to limit the days in nursery, add childcare vouchers in and government funding kicking in later in the year. I've also got £2k in childcare vouchers accrued while my wide was on maternity leave with number two to soften the blow of them both going in soon.
There are so many daft foibles and in consistencies in the system though that tend to disincentives work; eg my Wife is a bit into the higher rate tax bracket, so if she goes back 4 days a week, she can save a days nursery x 8 a week, claim double Childcare Vouchers, save £50 in travel costs and avoid all her 40% tax to end up just £150 worse off each month for a 20% drop in hours. Madness.
I suppose the way you have to look at it is if you can make it just about work, then you'll be rolling in it when they go to school.
TartanPaint said:
vonuber said:
We pay £2100/month in nursery fees for our two kids under 3.
We had a long discussion about whether it was worth the other half going back to work, or if she did me quitting.
My wife's entire salary is wiped out by nursery fees. She basically works full time for nothing other than keeping her skills current so she still has a career when the kids are school age. Although we'll still need to pay for pre-school and afterschool clubs then, so won't be any better off.We had a long discussion about whether it was worth the other half going back to work, or if she did me quitting.
Government funded hours count for SFA in the grand scheme of things. It infuriates me the way they keep banging on about free childcare, which to anyone without kids sounds like parents are getting a free ride, while anyone with kids knows it's next to useless.
We're not even that badly off compared to some friends, who have opted to have one parent at home because the sums don't add up. There's simply no option for them, except to ditch one career. It's a national scandal, or should be!
OK, when I was born (1970), it would've been frowned upon for my mother to carry on working whilst I was little, but since pretty much all mothers stopped working, families got by on a single income, and could still afford decent housing and the like.
Now, however, the norm is for both parents to work, and house prices reflect that. In the Sixties or Seventies, a woman could choose to work, albeit with people thinking her very odd. These days, unless one parent is earning really good money, it's nigh on impossible for either to give up work, especially if they have any desire to get on or remain on the housing ladder.
Why is forcing everyone to maintain a two career household acceptable?
As has been suggested for the NHS, perhaps it is time for users of public services to receive a statement each time of what the service has cost to provide, along with stating the subsidy applied. There are lots of people that contribute very little to the funding of public services, but use a great deal. It may make them think a little more about their personal contribution to society.
roachcoach said:
I was going to say devils advocate, but it might simply be true.
The government needs the money.
But if people arent paying enough tax to cover the ‘free’ childcare costs - then it may in fact be costing the country money.The government needs the money.
The assumption “person in work = higher net tax” may well be false in many cases.
abzmike said:
As has been suggested for the NHS, perhaps it is time for users of public services to receive a statement each time of what the service has cost to provide, along with stating the subsidy applied. There are lots of people that contribute very little to the funding of public services, but use a great deal. It may make them think a little more about their personal contribution to society.
Exactly this. When the NHS is on the news, the focus always seems to be ‘lack of funding’. In fact a large problem the NHS faces is overuse and abuse of it’s services. This aspect isn’t stated nearly enough IMO.
People need to understand that they are part of the problem the NHS faces.
If everyone used public services responsibly - there would be much more to go around when you actually need it. The idea that these services are ‘free’ doesnt encouage responsible use IMO.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 18th January 13:33
roachcoach said:
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?
Why should he refuse child benefit? He has paid the taxes that fund them. We receive a small amount of child benefit (and the 15 hours child care or whatever it is) but I would be happy to vote for a party that phased it out whilst also cutting taxes.
Hayek said:
roachcoach said:
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?
Why should he refuse child benefit? He has paid the taxes that fund them. We receive a small amount of child benefit (and the 15 hours child care or whatever it is) but I would be happy to vote for a party that phased it out whilst also cutting taxes.
Moonhawk said:
roachcoach said:
I was going to say devils advocate, but it might simply be true.
The government needs the money.
But if people arent paying enough tax to cover the ‘free’ childcare costs - then it may in fact be costing the country money.The government needs the money.
The assumption “person in work = higher net tax” may well be false in many cases.
What is the cost in benefits and so forth of someone not working vs someone who is?
Even someone not being a "net contributor" in taxes is still alleviating pressure on the system, is still spening money elsewhere in keeping places going etc etc. There are certainly edge cases within the insanity that is the tax/benefit system yes, you will get no argument from me on that front.
My point is simply that binning the childcare could easily be a case of penny wise, pound foolish.
roachcoach said:
Because the entire basis of their post was "don't have children if you can't afford them", in fact what they said was "why should the governmentnet taxpayer pick up the tab" to then go on and take state money for having said children is a pretty tough position to defend from.
EFAMoonhawk said:
roachcoach said:
Certainly, but ask yourself: Is it better to have someone in work, or out of work?
Like I said earlier - that’s probably a whole discussion in itself.
However should it turn out that it's better to be unemployed than not well then....you've got far bigger issues at hand.
roachcoach said:
Hayek said:
roachcoach said:
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?
Why should he refuse child benefit? He has paid the taxes that fund them. We receive a small amount of child benefit (and the 15 hours child care or whatever it is) but I would be happy to vote for a party that phased it out whilst also cutting taxes.
We did send them to a (private) nursery but not to get rid of them, rather for them to integrate with other kids and learn something (just in case you might have thought we kept them locked up/home-schooled).
The above is our opinion, you may think differently that's your choice.
Regarding child benefit I'm not trying to defend anything, only an idiot would refuse it if it was given to them, I see it as a bit of a tax refund, money that should never have been taken in the first instance.
I don't agree with the way the tax system works: i.e. take loads and then give some back to certain groups. I would prefer a simplified system where less is taken, so no need to give so many refunds/incentives/benefits back but that's not my decision so I live with the system as it is. I'm also fairly sure HMRC will have had more than enough from us by the time they've finished to cover any child benefits.
I'm not begrudging the 'free' or subsidised childcare but IMO kids fare better when looked after by their own parents and if that means one of them sacrificing a job/career then maybe that's a price that maybe to be paid? and if, in turn that means people can't afford it then maybe they shouldn't?
I realise my views maybe stone-aged to some but sometimes you can't always have everything you want - there are plenty of things I'd like but don't have because I can't afford to.
We all see every day the result of kids not being raised properly and whilst I'm not accusing anyone here of anything or blaming childcare, there are plenty around who should never have had children, children that go on to be the 'promising footballers' etc. so often in the news. Children that may not have turned out so if the parents could afford (or could be arsed) to raise them properly.
So, yes if you can't provide sufficiently well (financially and emotionally) for kids then maybe it's best not to have them - sorry (not really) if that offends anyone...
abzmike said:
As has been suggested for the NHS, perhaps it is time for users of public services to receive a statement each time of what the service has cost to provide, along with stating the subsidy applied. There are lots of people that contribute very little to the funding of public services, but use a great deal. It may make them think a little more about their personal contribution to society.
I can imagine such a scheme costing £10bn+ a year to operate.Moonhawk said:
roachcoach said:
I was going to say devils advocate, but it might simply be true.
The government needs the money.
But if people arent paying enough tax to cover the ‘free’ childcare costs - then it may in fact be costing the country money.The government needs the money.
The assumption “person in work = higher net tax” may well be false in many cases.
For example take a hospital porter earning £15,000 a year. I would guess that they receive more in benefits/services than they pay in taxes (indirect and direct). But their work enables other people (perhaps net contributors of tax) to get out of hospital sooner and produce more economic output.
Or likewise a supermarket shelf stacker.
Or any other low wage job.
There's a worker shortage, and if we don't want mass immigration then we need to incentivise home-grown population growth. It has to be growth to cope with the increased life expectancy.
So perhaps it comes down to this:
Incentivise breeding or increase immigration.
Brave Fart said:
Moonhawk said:
Exactly the type of thing i’m talking about. It does cost you either in terms of your personal tax or in reduced public services.
Nothing is ‘free’.
Well indeed, and yet every time you hear about something in the UK that could be better - transport, education, healthcare, childcare, the justice system, you name it - the cry is "more funding" and "the government (or "they") should spend more on this".Nothing is ‘free’.
And if you're of a Corbyn persuasion, you just say "oh, the rich will pay for all that". If you have never experienced a Labour government you might also say "we are the 6th richest country in the world, we can simply borrow the money."
Higher spending? Yes please. Who pays? Not my problem pal.
In fact, the UK is roughly the 25th richest country on Earth. Roughly half the country today is now poorer than Poland. Britain is one of the poorest countries in the Western world.
The harsh reality is this -- Britain cannot afford cradle-to-grave freebies. It cannot afford free after-school (university) and it cannot afford free pre-school (nursery). Folk will have to pay for it themselves if they want it done properly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff