‘Free’ child care
Discussion
Yipper said:
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.
Edited by gooner1 on Friday 19th January 08:42
TartanPaint said:
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.
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!
Why doesn’t she quit and look after the kids? She missing out on raising the kids and you’re missing out having them with their mother for no reason. ‘Keeping her skills current’? Come on man. 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!
Yipper said:
That's a common misconception.
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.
It's not a common misconception. It depends on the metric you choose to use. And I'm not convinced per capita figures (which I am assuming you are referring to) is an especially pre-eminent one in such discussions. 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.
When you look at that list it's quite understandably full of very small countries who have interesting tax regimes and hence attract disproportionately high numbers of incredibly wealthy people. Strip those out and relative rankings look very different.
As for Poland... You can't take portions of countries and compare apples with pears between them with any credibility (not something you worry about, I know
). I imagine 95% of the country is poorer than Zimbabwe (the Mugabes at any rate). Great soundbite but meaningless.I agree with your closing paragraph however. And frankly see nothing wrong with people paying for services they want.
I feel that this is missing the point. What needs to happen is that mortgages need to be based on smaller salary multiples. 30 years ago it was 3x one salary and 1x one salary. If this happened, house prices (and therefore rents also) would move to a sensible level which would give people who didn't want to work a chance to stay home and look after their kids and those who didn't want to and both parents worked would have enough income to pay for childcare.
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?
My wife and I had a long chat when our first was due and our conclusion was that she should give up work until the kids started school. They played with a number of other kids with mothers in the same situation and I think it one of the better decisions of my life. 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?
It was only later that we were accused of 'costing' the country by our selfish act. No tax being paid, no NI, that sort of thing. Nurseries were much cheaper in those days.
There were sacrifices - holidays, the car, TV, that sort of thing, but we both feel it was, for us, the right decision. My point of view was/is that I didn't want to trust a stranger with my kids.
There's a lot of pressure on mothers nowadays to go back to work immediately. My office manager fell pregnant and was obviously happy. However, she wanted to look after the kid for the pre-school years but her hubby and the in-laws were shocked by such an outrageous idea.
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.
.....
It's a national scandal, or should be!
catso said:
Not the entire basis at all, the primary reason for my Wife stopping work was that it is better for Children to be with their Mother than with an unknown 'carer'. We know plenty who had kids and then immediately farmed them out all day so that the parents could carry on working (often to be worse off), leaving the kids confused and we couldn't see why you would want to do that? Neither myself or my Wife were raised that way and we didn't want it for our kids.
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...
There seems to be some contradictory points there. I would expect those you refer to as promising footballers, demographically, have parents who don't work. In a family where both parents work to pay for everything I'd suggest their morals of hard work and sacrifice are picked up by their children.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...
I certainly want to spend more time with my children rather than working (as does my wife), but without work we cannot offer them the same opportunities (a house!!, all the activities they could ever want to do, holidays, etc). They've both flourished at nursery, and are keen to go in every day. Going from full time parental care straight into school, having had 4-5 years of a such a strong bond, doesn't necessarily set them up well. Every child is different though.
And fine, people have different opinions on raising children, but to suggest if people can't afford to have a stay at home parent they shouldn't have kids is a ludicrous statement, and one borne from someone who hasn't had to take out a ludicrous mortgage for a modest sized flat/house. We had our first child when living in a 1 bedroom flat. My wife took 12 months off, but we ate through savings just to pay a mortgage (which we wouldn't have got without her earning).
fat80b said:
Indeed - It does seem rather "unfair" at the limits.
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......
We will get no assistance from the government in any way (including when our child is older). At the moment. it's 1400 quid for a full time nursery place for one child (and I have 2). 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......
It's encouraged us to rethink how and how much we work.
It's likely to result in one of us working less, or most likely changing jobs to contract work (and contributing less tax while taxing more). Well done government...
They could (of course) run the old voucher scheme in parallel. There was a debate about it yesterday. It was an absolute white wash. However, as is always the case, the acknowledged the case for keeping it was very strong, then decided not to change the plan to scrap it. Genuises, the lot of them.
SunsetZed said:
I feel that this is missing the point. What needs to happen is that mortgages need to be based on smaller salary multiples. 30 years ago it was 3x one salary and 1x one salary. If this happened, house prices (and therefore rents also) would move to a sensible level which would give people who didn't want to work a chance to stay home and look after their kids and those who didn't want to and both parents worked would have enough income to pay for childcare.
It’s really not that simple all your plan would do is take house ownership away from the low paid. yajeed said:
They could (of course) run the old voucher scheme in parallel. There was a debate about it yesterday. It was an absolute white wash. However, as is always the case, the acknowledged the case for keeping it was very strong, then decided not to change the plan to scrap it. Genuises, the lot of them.
The old scheme and the new scheme are broadly equivalent in the saving, but the new scheme only lets you unlock the benefit proportionally with the number of hours in nursery. So you can't use it to ameliorate a massive bill if you have grandparents etc involved as well. b
ds.And both schemes are per earner rather than per child so a second child is a kick in the balls compares with a first.
BoRED S2upid said:
It’s really not that simple all your plan would do is take house ownership away from the low paid.
Is that not the case already?I may have missed this, but I'm yet to see a comment on
the social benefits of a child attending pre school nursery, especially in the
example of single child families.
yajeed said:
We will get no assistance from the government in any way (including when our child is older). At the moment. it's 1400 quid for a full time nursery place for one child (and I have 2).
Isn't that very expensive for a nursery?Around here (Chester) they're nudging £50 / day and it's tough to get a place in the sought-after ones. One we use is adding £7/day across the board for meals as a way of compensating for the free hours they'll give (on a very limited basis) to three year olds. Some parents have been refused the free hours but still have to pay the extra £7!
Fourmotion said:
I certainly want to spend more time with my children rather than working (as does my wife), but without work we cannot offer them the same opportunities (a house!!, all the activities they could ever want to do, holidays, etc).
Does this highlight a critical difference today.We had a house as children sure - but I dont recall doing a plethora of activities or having holidays with my parents.
Are people simply trying to do more stuff which costs money? They want a house AND want to be able to do activities AND go on holidays AND.........
paulrockliffe said:
The old scheme and the new scheme are broadly equivalent in the saving, but the new scheme only lets you unlock the benefit proportionally with the number of hours in nursery. So you can't use it to ameliorate a massive bill if you have grandparents etc involved as well. bds.
And both schemes are per earner rather than per child so a second child is a kick in the balls compares with a first.
We qualified for the voucher scheme, and get nothing on the new one. ds.And both schemes are per earner rather than per child so a second child is a kick in the balls compares with a first.
Sheepshanks said:
Isn't that very expensive for a nursery?
Around here (Chester) they're nudging £50 / day and it's tough to get a place in the sought-after ones. One we use is adding £7/day across the board for meals as a way of compensating for the free hours they'll give (on a very limited basis) to three year olds. Some parents have been refused the free hours but still have to pay the extra £7!
Yes! 70 quid a day discounted for full time.Around here (Chester) they're nudging £50 / day and it's tough to get a place in the sought-after ones. One we use is adding £7/day across the board for meals as a way of compensating for the free hours they'll give (on a very limited basis) to three year olds. Some parents have been refused the free hours but still have to pay the extra £7!
Moonhawk said:
Does this highlight a critical difference today.
We had a house as children sure - but I dont recall doing a plethora of activities or having holidays with my parents.
Are people simply trying to do more stuff which costs money? They want a house AND want to be able to do activities AND go on holidays AND.........
ThisWe had a house as children sure - but I dont recall doing a plethora of activities or having holidays with my parents.
Are people simply trying to do more stuff which costs money? They want a house AND want to be able to do activities AND go on holidays AND.........
I tell you what after having my own I wouldn’t look after someone else’s kid for 50 quid a day.
2 options, either don’t have them or look after them yourselves.
I’m sure the country would have to get used to the lower tax income and there is the possibility that we may bring up better adjusted kids.
Douglas Quaid said:
TartanPaint said:
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.
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!
Why doesn’t she quit and look after the kids? She missing out on raising the kids and you’re missing out having them with their mother for no reason. ‘Keeping her skills current’? Come on man. 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!
My wife was earning around £45k pa when our kids came along 15 years ago. She did carry on working whilst our daughter went to nursery, but stopped when she went to Primary school, as we just couldn't figure out a way to make those reduced hours (compared to Nursery) work with my job which had a huge amount of overseas travel at the time.
In total, she was off work for 7 years, much of it drove her nuts, as much as people love their kids, adults still need their own brains stimulating, and there's only so many renditions of "the wheels on the bus" that you can cope with before going off the rails.
When she started looking to go back, that "keeping her skills current" really came back to bite her. There was simply no chance of getting back into her previous career at anything like the level she'd been at, and equally no real chance of getting back in at a lower level, as potential employers seemed to take the view that she'd just use them as a vehicle to get back up to speed then bugger off elsewhere.
In the end, she ended up retraining to go from HR (would've been around £55k in today's money) to being a Personal Trainer on around £15k. She's actually a lot happier and less stressed, which is great, but that cut is painful, and you have to remember that if someone does give up their career to look after their kids, at most that's going to realistically be 10-12 years out of, what, 45 years between adulthood and retirement?
jonnyb said:
We had 1 child at nursery and get no help from the government. With the wrap around care we need (wife works full time) private school is cheaper than nursery.
The situation seems just the same at either ends of life - care for elderly people is insanely expensive. Yet in both cases places are closing as they can't make it pay.I read of a nursery owner in the SE packing it in as parents "on £100K+" were complaining that she wouldn't offer the Government's free hours to 3yr olds. She said doing that made the business model for the nursery fall apart
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff