It occurred to me that this would surely be a good thing, as they have in Sweden.

It would get a lot of people off benefits – people who can’t work because they have to look after kids. And it would provide a fair bit of extra employment too. It might only end up shifting the money about a bit but at least people would be working rather than sitting about.

Seems to be very popular in Sweden, would it help here?

We already have it here don’t we?

Not full time but ‘x’ sessions a week?

I can’t see why not apart moaning from people who work that have no children. The amount of cash we shell out for childcare a month (£480!! for 3 days) is ridiculous and if spent on motor finance we’d have a lovely shiny new car in the drive and possibly a nice carbon bicycle for Daddy.

https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/childcare-tax-credits

State-funded services aren’t free.

Not full time but ‘x’ sessions a week?

We have 20 hours of free nursery a week after 3 years old. That’s nothing useful in childcare terms, it’s for the educational benefit of the kid.

I think this would just make parents feel obligated to work. And push housing prices higher, fewer people can afford to get on housing ladder etc. etc. Scandinavia has a very different social ethos to the UK.
Rather than trying to get familys to work more, they should spend more effort on keeping familys together.

Investing in children is worthwhile

The combined incomes of my wife and I only just make both of us working viable with 2 kids at nursery and we earn above national average and have reasonable mortgage payments and no other debts to service

Schemes like sure start have shown that giving poorer kids access to better education at a younger age is also an excellent way to improve their chances in life

But obviously it’s all a bit socialist so a lot of people disagree on principle

State-funded services aren’t free.

+1

Investing in children is worthwhile

Unless, of course, you choose an investment involving a private education, apparently.

😉

£800 + a month per child at private rates.

Wonder how much it’d cost public sector, proper pay, benefits, pension etc.

No thanks.

State-funded services aren’t free.

is this a none parent complaining about where their taxes are going? See kimber’s post, puts it better than I could.

Why don’t parents want to look after their children?

“Why don’t parents want to look after their children?

Because we have to keep a roof over their heads?

To quote littlemisspanda (i think) from ages ago…make lifestyle choices you can afford 😉

has the op ever been to sweden?

you’d need a sea change in culture to make any of their scandinavian shenanigans work over here

My adult kids know fine well that I will NOT be doing child care. To be fair, only one wants kids. The other has cats instead!

cinnamon_girl – Member

Why don’t parents want to look after their children?

willjones – Member

“Why don’t parents want to look after their children?

Because we have to keep a roof over their heads?

Exactly my point (except I didn’t make it very well because I’m full of snoty cold). We have to pay childcare because my wife has to work so we can afford our house. Which isn’t particularly expensive as we live in Lowestoft. I would love us to have the option to work less and spend more time with our daughter. But the cost of living makes this impossible.

…proper pay, benefits, pension etc.

No thanks.

Nice.

Why don’t parents want to look after their children?

Because we have to keep a roof over their heads?

Because they pay so much tax (see CaptJon’s post for why).

People aren’t prepared to compromise shocker.

So you knew you needed two full time incomes to secure the house but you still decided to breed and bitch about childcare costs?

To quote littlemisspanda (i think) from ages ago…make lifestyle choices you can afford

Do more families need two incomes to pay for houses because houses got more expensive. Or, did houses get more expensive because more families have two people working?

Nice.

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.

We have 20 hours of free nursery a week after 3 years old

15 here in England. Plus the minder/nursery/whatever MUST be registered for it. Defo 20 across the border?

To quote littlemisspanda (i think) from ages ago…make lifestyle choices you can afford

Let’s all move up north shall we?

Let’s all move up north shall we?

I want a Ferarri but I don’t think I can afford the maintenance with my current mortgage repayments 🙁

we can only afford to have one kid. If it was totally free childcare we’d have three

Shall we have a whip-round? It seems a shame for something as mundane as money to be cheating the world of more of hora’s genes.

Let’s all move up north shall we?

Please don’t.

For anyone Down South reading this: it’s awful up here, please stay where you are.

Free school dinners from next September. That’ll save me £80 a month.

*waits for lunchbox wielding backlash*

Let’s all move up north shall we?

Think of the kids! They’ll get northern accents.

To quote littlemisspanda (i think) from ages ago…make lifestyle choices you can afford

8)

*waits for lunchbox wielding backlash*

As long as Jamie doesn’t roll out one of his Linford Christie gifs, I think we’re OK here.

Just to clarify, it’s not totally free in Sweden, and the whole approach is very different from how I understand it to be in the UK. Universal public nursery/preschool care is very heavily subsidised by the state, with parental contributions capped at a maximum of ~£150 a month for highest rate tax payers. Provision is regulated by the state who fund the majority through grants and general taxation. It is near-as-dammit universally popular, across the political spectrum.

Whereas the UK seems to abhor anything that looks vaguely like state intervention, hence you usually choose either to be shafted by employer or government (or both), and pay a shitload more for the privilege of childcare that is effectively unregulated (in terms of the extent of provision/ access, quality, and “the market”).

PS- any arguments about the impossibility of state funding or regulation in the UK could usefully be prefaced by a comparison between the respective SE/UK budgets for, let’s say, childcare and “defence”. I’d be interested if anyone had a nice pie chart showing that, maybe done as a % of trident replacement schemes 😉

For anyone Down South reading this: it’s awful up here, please stay where you are.

Yeah we know, why do you think we are still down here?

Yeah we know, why do you think we are still down here?

Just so long as you stay there.

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.

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.

That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that you both have to 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.

Because they pay so much tax (see CaptJon’s post for why).

and what is the tax rate in Sweden????

maybe the problem in the UK is not tax, but the cost of housing?

and what is the tax rate in Sweden????

A lot more than it is here.