[Closed] Free state-funded childcare?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that you have to both work because you can't afford to lose one wage because of the rate of tax.

It all depends if you actually want to bring up your children yourself.

As for bringing up children, I would prefer that mothers or fathers stay at home because they want to, not out of economic necessity. Are you a stay-at-home parent?

As for bringing up children, I would prefer that mothers or fathers stay at home because they want to, not out of economic necessity.

Are you a stay-at-home parent?

I do think that it's a shame that stay at home mums are not valued by Society in general.

I stayed at home with both my two, actually no choice as one needed regular hospital treatment, consultant appointments etc. and their father often had to work away from home/abroad.

Not being an Earth Mother type, it was pretty tough sometimes. Do however look back on those times with much happiness and it's also nice when now adult kids talk about their happy childhood and the various activities we did together. 8)

Life was simple although we were lucky to manage one week's ski-ing holiday with kids every year.

The mrs was.

Generally in these discussions, those talking about children being brought up by other people, are not the ones who stay(ed) at home to do the childcare.

You could also say that by not breaking your career for looking after kids, or giving up work entirely, you might be keeping more skills and contributing to a more skilled workforce which could help your whole country compete in the global market.

That's assuming people are that civic-minded. Most people are not. They only care about what's best for them and their family, because that's what Thatcher taught us to do.

I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but I think most people when they make their decisions about whether to stay home or not will make the decision based on what's best for them and theirs and hang the effect on the economy or the country's competitiveness in the global market.

Hell, if I could afford not to work, I wouldn't, and screw the economy. It's screwed and unsustainable anyway

/dystopian rant

Generally in these discussions, those talking about children being brought up by other people, are not the ones who stay(ed) at home to do the childcare.

My mrs differed - the 'why the hell would you have kids and not look after them' comments she still comes out with seems to confirm the experience didn't traumatise her too much.

hora - Member 
Why should the general populace fund a huge increase in public spending?
Many people would have more children, which would be a boom (not a bad thing) but it would mean a huge expense annually.
For instance we can only afford to have one kid. If it was totally free childcare we'd have three say.
Many people would have 5 - people who dont work and have no intention would stick their kids in, sit on their arses and say 'oh I cant work as I have soo many kids' still.

Lolz. Sounds just like Sweden, bunch of slackers, ****ing around just so they can sponge off the state and claim benefits while their countless kids run feral.

Just in case you wondered Hora, fertility rates are almost identical in the UK and SE, if anything SE looks to be trending slightly lower than the UK of late.

For those saying people in Sweden or Norway are forced back to work (either through societal pressures or because they can't afford not to), again that's not really a widespread phenomenon IMO. Parental (non-gender specific) leave conditions are much better and much more flexible than the UK (thankfully the UK seems to be slowly dragging itself out of the dark ages on this one). There is a spectrum of parents in full time, part time and flexible employment and others who are full time at home. Leave arrangements can typically last up until their child is going to school (which is usually at least a year after the UK) if the parents opt to do so. I have to say I don't witness any stigma attached to any of these approaches, either socially or "career" terms.

Hell, if I could afford not to work, I wouldn't

That's not true of everyone though. I do wonder what percentage would choose to go back to work, if money was not an issue.

PS Norway isn't really a fair comparison to the rest of us, they have loads of money coming in from state run oil.

I stayed at home, (okay maybe 30-50 days work/year). It just never entered our heads to think we'd have kids and outsource their upbringing. Flexibility in childcare is almost impossible to find, though, an issue for freelancers and contractors.

Are you saying nobody would stay at home unless they had too? Admittedly there's no way on earth I'd have stayed home.

You raised the issue of children being brought up by people other than their parents, and you admit that you wouldn't be prepared to stay at home. What would you have done if your wife felt the same way you do?

'why the hell would you have kids and not look after them'

an awful lot of people do!

You raised the issue of children being brought up by people other than their parents, and you admit that you wouldn't be prepared to stay at home. What would you have done if your wife felt the same way you do?

All I'm saying is that there is a risk if you make childcare 'free' you inadvertently make it financially unviable to not use the 'free' childcare removing the choice for those that want to raise their own children.

an awful lot of people do!

Let me see - there aren't enough jobs to go round so we're paying benefits to people who can't find work so why not fork out even more to bring more people into the workplace creating even more competition for the few jobs there are and making it that bit harder to find a job.
Still as long I'm funding your inability to pay for your own brat, who am I to complain?

ransos - Member
State-funded services aren't free.
Not always true.
In Norway, they found that free or heavily subsidised child care pays for itself - because parents go back to work, pay more tax, and spend more in the shops.

Ransos, don't let facts get in the way of people's mean-minded and dare I say right-wing beliefs! Let's let only well-off people procreate, because that's fair isn't it. Why should people have the universal choice to be parents...

All I'm saying is that there is a risk if you make childcare 'free' you inadvertently make it financially unviable to not use the 'free' childcare removing the choice for those that want to raise their own children.

I would discuss it more, but I have to pick my daughter up from her exorbitantly expensive nursery. 😉

I'm given to believe that children's development benefits with some time at nursery (a good nursery). I think it's linked to the variety of social input they get. Please note I'm not saying 8-6 five days a week.

I think that's where the 15 (or 20) hours a week comes from.

Why would anyone not want to look after there children? Well that's an emotive and dare I say a little biased question. We have two children, could live off one salary, but following a Bachelors, a Masters and a CIM diploma my wife likes to work 3 days a week, so we use a nursery. I like it too, as it means she understands my work pressures, because she has them too. I drop the boys off in the morning, my wife picks them up in the evening. We normally all breakfast together, I don't always make dinner, but normally make stories and bed. Cycling becomes night riding and commuting in the winter, but we all go out together in warmer weather. Money is not the issue - happy mummy, daddy and sons is.

Sweden is like us then? Nah.

I read an article a while back that talked about childcare in Denmark v the UK and the amount spent by the state was very similar for both but in Denmark they paid for provision whereas the UK provided more cash benefits.

Here we go

Britain is one of the biggest investors in families across the OECD countries, spending 3.6% of its GDP on family benefits in 2007. Only Denmark and France spent more, at 3.7% each.

But it is how this money is spent that is under scrutiny. In terms of better outcomes – such as the ability to lift children out of poverty and to increase female employment – Britain lags behind countries that spend less, such as Sweden and Finland. The Nordic countries tend to spend more on services to families than cash benefits. The UK does it the other way around.

Well there are always pros and cons. My brother lived in Norway for 5 yrs while his kids were young. Yes, child care is very very good and so are some other public services, but they are so highly taxed they can't afford to do much else. He is in the oil industry and earning a fair whack, but taking his family out for a bite to eat or to do something was so expensive they hardly ever went out. Just popping down to a cafe for a couple of cups of coffee and slice of something was stupid expensive compared with the uk - even at Costa Coffee prices. And you can forget popping out to the pub for a couple of pints with your mate. You're looking at not much change out of £100 for a night out there. So swings and roundabouts. I personally would rather give my money to a private childcare business than pay more tax to fund an inefficient government service that would end up going on strike a few days a year anyway. At least when my kids are older and no longer need access to the service I stop paying for it.

All this talk of "why can't we do it like Denmark/Norway/Sweden/Finland?" reminds me of the great example of the reform of licensing laws which ended the binge drinking culture relating to outdated last orders at 11pm and ushered in a safer, more relaxed family oriented cafe culture to our towns and cities.

I'm given to believe that children's development benefits with some time at nursery (a good nursery). I think it's linked to the variety of social input they get. Please note I'm not saying 8-6 five days a week.

I think that's where the 15 (or 20) hours a week comes from.

I would agree with that. We will have a dilemma coming up, with the choice of moving from 2 paid days to 2 largely free days, 3 days with a smaller bill or even 4 days. Daughter really enjoys herself at nursery so the middle ground is favourite at the moment.

If my wife stayed at home full time, some serious cloth cutting would have to take place. As it is, we are trying to get more cash together for a house, rather than a 2 bed with 4 people in it.

Still as long I'm funding your inability to pay for your own brat, who am I to complain?

I'll do you a deal - you don't have to fund my brat, as long as she doesn't have to fund your old age care. Deal?

The reason childcare and child benefits are important to the state is that the state needs a fresh supply of citizens to pay taxes and do things in the future. Old age pensions make up about 2/3 of all welfare payments, and that money has to come from younger people in work - as does the money to pay for all the extra NHS care that older people need.

Really narks me off this attitude of "it's your kid, you pay for it" - the corollary to that is we get to bump off people once they reach retirement age.

Different things work for different people. My partner and I are expecting our first child any day now. We made the decision that one of us would give up work until the child starts school. The way we see it is that our child, our responsibility.

We have a large mortgage, for us, and I earn sub 25k a year. Sacrifices will have to be made, but that's the decision we made. Don't mean to sound pretentious. Like has already been mentioned it's all about lifestyle choices.

HOWEVER, with bills for two kids in nursery part time at £1000/month I do wonder if things are a bit silly sometimes.

You know this argument (it's not just you willjones you were just the latest to use it) that childcare is too expensive does puzzle me a little. How much do you think is a reasonable amount to pay someone to look after you child and provide for them? Bearing in mind that it will often not just be the salary of the person doing the caring that is being paid for but also the equipment as well as the time spent in preparation, training, an all the usual business overheads.

funkmasterp would (will) you still be able to cope if (when) interest rates rise and mortgage repayments could skyrocket?
or if the main breadwinner lost their job etc

I think the point is no one would be forced to put their kids in childcare and the ideal would be the option to do so if you want supported by the state, combined with better support from employesr for flexible working etc

Hi kimbers, I'll cross that bridge if or when I come to it. Mortgage payment is long term fixed and only a year in to it. It would be great to have the flexibility of free child care, but I genuinely believe the individual should be responsible for their own child. Each to their own though 🙂

Let me see - there aren't enough jobs to go round so we're paying benefits to people who can't find work so why not fork out even more to bring more people into the workplace creating even more competition for the few jobs there are and making it that bit harder to find a job.

I think the idea is that more people available to work stimulates the economy.

Also remember that more people would take up free childcare, so that would create childminder and administrative jobs. Of course I have no idea what the figures are, but as above evidence seems to suggest that it might not cost the country much overall and might benefit it.

I genuinely believe the individual should be responsible for their own child

There was an article not long ago (BBC I think) suggesting that in Denmark (check country) if your child doesn't attend nursery then social services start getting mighty interested in whether you're neglecting the child.

Different societies, different social norms.

Back to unintended consequences... parents haven't traditionally been reposnible for childcare, it has usually been older family members, grand parents.

Parents looking after their kids is a new, and possibly short lived phenominon.

[quoteThere was an article not long ago (BBC I think) suggesting that in Denmark (check country) if your child doesn't attend nursery then social services start getting mighty interested in whether you're neglecting the child.

I'll look into that it sounds interesting. There appears to be lots of advantages and disadvantages to both options. Might be because it's our first, but neither of us want to leave the baby with, for all intents and purposes, a stranger. At least not for prolonged periods especially whilst very young.

Will probably change our minds when we haven't slept for a couple of years though. Perhaps Madonna would purchase a part Yorkshire baby to add to her collection 🙂

Funkmasterp - where in Yorkshire are you? There are good nurseries and bad. Go with your gut feeling when you walk round (pre-schoolers tend to wear their heats on their sleeves and if their all playing happily it's probably a good place), but if you let me know I'll see if I know anyone who lives in the area. I'm in York if that helps.

Do look at (by which I mean visit) a few nurseries though, even if it just confirms it's not for you.

And don't buy lots of unnecessary baby stuff (you will though)

Best wishes and get some sleep.

Thanks igm 🙂 not actually in God's country anymore. Missus is from Cheshire, so now live in Macclesfield. Sorry to derail thread, but can't wait to meet the little one 🙂

Go to bed. You'll regret it if you don't sleep now.

Pushing costs lower would make total sense, so it will never happen. Hey I know what to do, why not pay a stupid amout of housing benefit pushing rents up? That's a much better idea.