‘Free’ child care

[Moonhawk]

Watching a BBC news article this morning about ‘free’ childcare for working families.

They interviewed several people who said things like “it should be free for everyone” and the “ the government should pay more”.

Do we need to get away from this idea of ‘free’ and ‘the government paying for stuff’ (particularly in news reports) IMO it is misleading and iscontributing to people abusing services (like the NHS etc).

Nothing is ‘free’ and the government has no money of it’s own.

All money comes from the taxpayer (particularly the net tax payer) - or we as a country borrow money, thereby increasing the national debt.

[Moonhawk]

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.

My post wasnt about childcare per-se, more about the concept of it being ‘free’.

Even if somebody us able to work due to having access to this ‘free’ childcare - unless the pay more in tax than the childcare costs, then it’s still other tax payers picking up the tab.

Of course there may be other considerations/advantages to people being in work other than the btoom line tax take - but that’s probably for another discussion.

[Moonhawk]

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.

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’.

[Moonhawk]

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.

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

[Moonhawk]

Boydie88 said:

Childcare shouldn't necessarily be free,

It’s not ‘free’ that’s my point.

Everthing has to be payed for - so we need to get away from using language like ‘free’.

Perhaps ‘taxpayer subsidised’ would be a better term.

[Moonhawk]

catso said:

What about the tax/NI that I was (still am) paying and that she had paid previously?

Depends at what level you are paying.

Most people paying tax and NI arent even covering their own annual cost to the state - let alone making a net contribution.

[Moonhawk]

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 assumption “person in work = higher net tax” may well be false in many cases.

[Moonhawk]

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

[Moonhawk]

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.

EFA

[Moonhawk]

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.

[Moonhawk]

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.........

[Moonhawk]

Dindoit said:

It’s not just “person in work”, it’s people in work, both paying tax.

Option A: parent stays at home to look after kid(s). No tax paid.
Option B: parent goes to work, pays taxes. Childminder/nanny/nursery staff goes to work, pays taxes. In the case of the nursery they’re taxed as a business too.

In option B the GDP also increases.

People (childless people) get cross at subsidising other people's “lifestyle choices”. I certainly hope they turn down pensions, offer to pay for nhs treatment etc. etc.

Well given I have neither suggested people shouldnt be given childcare or that one parent should stay at home - i’m not really sure I see the point. I was merely commenting that somebody working wouldnt neccesarily increase the tax take.

Also - all of this is completely irrelevent to the point in my OP. I wasnt commenting on ‘free’ childcare being available - my OP was about it being described as ‘free’.

For some reason this point has been missed by many and the debate has turned into one about childcare.