£2K/year/child for child care

Frank the tank

For families on a combined income of up to £300K do me a favour. :?

sloppyschleckonds

Tax payer subsidising people who chose to have kids, whatever next.

Frank the tank

Taxpayer subsidising some people who can well afford to pay for their child care.

Daz555

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Tax payer subsidising people who chose to have kids, whatever next.

......so that more mums (and a few dads) choose work over staying at home and therefore pay more tax.

Simples.

ballysmate

Bit old fashioned, me.
I tend to think childcare is something parents and extended family do.

pinno

I do not see the point of earning an extra x pounds per week just to spend it on child care. If maternity/paternity leave conditions were better, maybe this last ditch 'it's a successful coalition, honest' policy wouldn't have been conjured up.

bdu98252

Personnally we were relatively high earners with a combined income of just under 100k when we both worked full time. My wifes 45k based on full time only just covers the child care for the 3 days both kids are in nursery with her working the 3 days and looking after them the rest of the time. We are well above the norm wage wise and we think it is expensive. I do not think that people on 20k a year would even consider working on our number anlysis. I like universal benefits as after all a faily on 300k per year PAYE will be paying a lot of tax and should se some benefit for their efforts.

People often preach on the Scandinavian model whereas we are replicating that but then removing all the benefits from the high earners. There is something very perversly British about trying to penalise the people at the top.

mamba80

bdu98252 wrote:

Personnally we were relatively high earners with a combined income of just under 100k when we both worked full time. My wifes 45k based on full time only just covers the child care for the 3 days both kids are in nursery with her working the 3 days and looking after them the rest of the time. We are well above the norm wage wise and we think it is expensive. I do not think that people on 20k a year would even consider working on our number anlysis. I like universal benefits as after all a faily on 300k per year PAYE will be paying a lot of tax and should se some benefit for their efforts.

People often preach on the Scandinavian model whereas we are replicating that but then removing all the benefits from the high earners. There is something very perversly British about trying to penalise the people at the top.

you chose to have kids, just as I did but why do you expect the tax payer, who maybe on a far lower income and not have kids to subsidise your life style choices? like who will give me an tax funded benefit to have 3 or more bikes?

Benefits should be there for those who need them, not for those that don't.

nathancom

mamba80 wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Personnally we were relatively high earners with a combined income of just under 100k when we both worked full time. My wifes 45k based on full time only just covers the child care for the 3 days both kids are in nursery with her working the 3 days and looking after them the rest of the time. We are well above the norm wage wise and we think it is expensive. I do not think that people on 20k a year would even consider working on our number anlysis. I like universal benefits as after all a faily on 300k per year PAYE will be paying a lot of tax and should se some benefit for their efforts.

People often preach on the Scandinavian model whereas we are replicating that but then removing all the benefits from the high earners. There is something very perversly British about trying to penalise the people at the top.

you chose to have kids, just as I did but why do you expect the tax payer, who maybe on a far lower income and not have kids to subsidise your life style choices? like who will give me an tax funded benefit to have 3 or more bikes?

Benefits should be there for those who need them, not for those that don't.

Perfectly reasonable for the state to lessen the burden on parents. After all where would the state be without new generations to replace the elderly. I am not sure you can really compare reproduction with owning bikes, but maybe that is just me...

I doubt this policy costs a huge amount extra to extend to those on up to 300k and there are already significant benefits to those on low incomes with children. I can see the place for some universal benefits, in effect the NHS is one such where we all receive care irrespective of our means. Also it is one of the Tories' least repugnant policies to support families so I would rather they be tackled where it really matters.

Garry H

Ballysmate wrote:

Bit old fashioned, me.
I tend to think childcare is something parents and extended family do.

Very old fashioned. Not everybody has extended family nearby.

Garry H

bdu98252 wrote:

Personnally we were relatively high earners with a combined income of just under 100k when we both worked full time. My wifes 45k based on full time only just covers the child care for the 3 days both kids are in nursery with her working the 3 days and looking after them the rest of the time. We are well above the norm wage wise and we think it is expensive. I do not think that people on 20k a year would even consider working on our number anlysis. I like universal benefits as after all a faily on 300k per year PAYE will be paying a lot of tax and should se some benefit for their efforts.

People often preach on the Scandinavian model whereas we are replicating that but then removing all the benefits from the high earners. There is something very perversly British about trying to penalise the people at the top.

You should find cheaper child care. We have two kids in nursery for three days a week and it costs about half of what my wife earns, which is a fair bit less than 45k.

rick_chasey

pinarello001 wrote:

I do not see the point of earning an extra x pounds per week just to spend it on child care. If maternity/paternity leave conditions were better, maybe this last ditch 'it's a successful coalition, honest' policy wouldn't have been conjured up.

S'not that straightforward though, is it?

bdu98252

The 45k is based upon her working full time which she doesn't so this drops down to 3/5ths of this and the nursery fees are pretty average for the North West. If she did not have a career which is likely to pay more once the kids are in school then she would have probably jacked it in and taken the free time with the kids. I don't mind paying for good nursery education as I am not keen on following the race to the bottom where my kids wellbeing is concerned. I do however believe that it should be tax deductable. This is effectively all the Tories are proposing and this is limited to 20% so the 300k people everyone is jeolous of are not getting the full tax rebate on the higher percentages.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

I do not see the point of earning an extra x pounds per week just to spend it on child care. If maternity/paternity leave conditions were better, maybe this last ditch 'it's a successful coalition, honest' policy wouldn't have been conjured up.

S'not that straightforward though, is it?

No your right.

My partner and I had to change our work patterns in order that both our girls never get child care. Call me old fashioned but I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times they are not at nursery/school.
The use of childcare facilities has gone silly and I think that children are not benefiting by being in childcare so much and from so young. We need to invest more into children but not in this way.

The flipside of that is single parent families where the single parent has to work to make ends meet.
It also is a sign of the times that the cost of living is so high, children are not being properly brought up and in a permanent state of transience.

bikes`n`guns

Can`t see why I should fund childcare for others, I worked hard so that my wife could stay at home to raise the kids we chose to have.
We were skint, but it was the right thing to do.

Can`t see the point in having children and farming them out to others to keep earning. If you can`t afford kids, don`t have them, but lets face it, they aren't that expensive, are they ?

Funny thing is, my wife now works in childcare, when people will happily pay more for someone to walk there dog, than they will pay someone to look after there children.

Daz555

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Can`t see the point in having children and farming them out to others to keep earning. If you can`t afford kids, don`t have them, but lets face it, they aren't that expensive, are they.

The nation would soon collapse if the only people having kids were those who had enough money for one parent to give up work completely.

pinarello001 wrote:

I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times they are not at nursery/school.

Nursery is childcare.

BelgianBeerGeek

Questions for all you reproductive heroes doing your duty by producing more people to become efficient workers and tax-payers:

How would the nation collapse if only rich people had kids? Why should the state fund your having kids?

If you want kids, have them, why should I have to pay for them?

random man

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Questions for all you reproductive heroes doing your duty by producing more people to become efficient workers and tax-payers:

How would the nation collapse if only rich people had kids? Why should the state fund your having kids?

If you want kids, have them, why should I have to pay for them?

The state will continue to fund nursery places and schools. Investment in education is paramount to a nation's future, no question.
The issue is why should the state fund private nursery places for people who may well be able to afford to send their little darlings to fee-paying schools?

Or should we all go back to pre-Victorian times where only those who could afford education got any? :twisted:

mpatts

A lesson in Taxation from Laffer:

Laffer explains the model in terms of two interacting effects of taxation: an "arithmetic effect" and an "economic effect".[3] The "arithmetic effect" assumes that tax revenue raised is the tax rate multiplied by the revenue available for taxation (or tax base). At a 0% tax rate, the model assumes that no tax revenue is raised. The "economic effect" assumes that the tax rate will have an impact on the tax base itself. At the extreme of a 100% tax rate, the government theoretically collects zero revenue because taxpayers change their behavior in response to the tax rate: either they have no incentive to work or they find a way to avoid paying taxes. Thus, the "economic effect" of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax base to zero. If this is the case, then somewhere between 0% and 100% lies a tax rate that will maximize revenue. Graphical representations of the curve sometimes appear to put the rate at around 50%, but the optimal rate could theoretically be any percentage greater than 0% and less than 100%. Similarly, the curve is often presented as a parabolic shape, but there is no reason that this is necessarily the case.

In other words, I have no problem with a 150k earner going back to work and getting a 2k tax break on private school fees.

Note, there is already a big tax break available.

MattC59

Bottom line...... When MattC59 junior arrives in 2 weeks time, am I going to get some money back from the government ?

pinno

Daz555 wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Can`t see...

pinarello001 wrote:

I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times they are not at nursery/school.

Nursery is childcare.

I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times when they (the children) are not at nursery/school.

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Can`t see...

pinarello001 wrote:

I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times they are not at nursery/school.

Nursery is childcare.

I thoroughly believe that from 0 to 5 years, at least one parent should be there for the children at all times when they (the children) are not at nursery/school.

I fully agree with Pina. When our kids were born my missus gave up work until they were school age. When they went to school, she got a job around school hours. I adjusted my work hours to ensure that one of us was always there to look after them.
We didn't have much spare cash, but we had made the decision to have kids and they were our responsibility, not the state's.

pinno

Yay, Bally agrees with me. He won't when he reads stuff I wrote about him in another thread

socrates

Simple really. If you can't afford the kids - don't have them. Why have children then winge and think the govt should subsidise your child care.

wannabecyclist

Saying if you can't afford kids then don't have them is even ore ignorant and ill informed view of drivers that say cyclists do not belong on the road as they do not pay 'road tax'.

The point is, average childcare is around £55 per day, so most families can afford 1 child in care but 2 means a parent will most likely have to stop working almost completely and it will be hard for people with an income less than 35k to run a household bills for a family of four on 1 income. All that is happening is that the money that would go to tax is paid to a company that runs childcare, so I am not receiving this saving, it is going towards helping a childcare business that provides jobs and buys goods and materials from local companies as well to keep it running. This also means, my partner who is a physiotherapist for the NHS can continue to work and help vulnerable people in the community. If all women or men are at home looking after their children what will the staffing levels be like in hospitals & schools if you lose trained teachers, midwifes, nurses etc for 10 years whilst they raise their 2 or 3 children?

Maybe when you are not so deluded you would be more attractive to women and may even be able to reproduce as well?

mpatts

socrates wrote:

Simple really. If you can't afford the kids - don't have them. Why have children then winge and think the govt should subsidise your child care.

And who will pay for our pensions if people stop having kids?

BelgianBeerGeek

mpatts wrote:

socrates wrote:

Simple really. If you can't afford the kids - don't have them. Why have children then winge and think the govt should subsidise your child care.

And who will pay for our pensions if people stop having kids?

So you have had kids (or would have kids if you don't already) just so your pension is safe? I hope the little darlings work very hard to keep you in a safe old age.

dhobiwallah

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Can`t see why I should fund childcare for others

You don't. Anyone earning up to that salary pays huge amounts of tax, more than enough to cover this - so I wouldn't worry about your personal tax contribution being unfairly given away as anyone receiving it is paying for it themselves. A better question would be 'why do I have to pay 40% of my salary to cover ***insert group of your choice here****' I have no idea what the average 'take' of the UK tax pot by any individual is - but by definition the majority of higher rate tax payers will be taking out far less then they are putting in..... I am also guessing that by the use of the past tense you were in receipt of child benefit at the time which I was paying for.

Plenty of people who complain about 'their tax' being misappropriated seem oblivious to the fact that they have taken more out of the system then they will ever put back in. My wife works in the NHS and it is amazing how many shell suited, dirty individuals scream at her about paying her wages while in the receipt of £250k worth of cancer treatment that they will never pay in tax in several lifetimes......

ballysmate

Worryingly, I may again have something in common with Pina.
I have never understood why some people are so keen to farm their kids out as soon as possible. People cite financial reasons and if they are in a position where they have to put food on the table, then fine.
Someone posted that his income was circa 55k and his wife's 45k, so I assume they wouln't be going hungry if one of them took care of their children.
I assume a typical day for someone with kids in childcare would be along the lines of
8.00 am Drop kids off
5.00 pm Pick kids up.
7.30 pm Kids go to bed.

I accept 'Different strokes for different folks' but I think it sad that the biggest influence on under 5s could be a child minder and not a parent.

mpatts

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

mpatts wrote:

socrates wrote:

Simple really. If you can't afford the kids - don't have them. Why have children then winge and think the govt should subsidise your child care.

And who will pay for our pensions if people stop having kids?

So you have had kids (or would have kids if you don't already) just so your pension is safe? I hope the little darlings work very hard to keep you in a safe old age.

Sorry for being unclear, what I mean is that our taxes and NI (and everyone elses) pay the pensions of the current retirees.

Essentially, a world that doesn't reproduce doesn't really work.

nathancom

mpatts wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

mpatts wrote:

socrates wrote:

Simple really. If you can't afford the kids - don't have them. Why have children then winge and think the govt should subsidise your child care.

And who will pay for our pensions if people stop having kids?

So you have had kids (or would have kids if you don't already) just so your pension is safe? I hope the little darlings work very hard to keep you in a safe old age.

Sorry for being unclear, what I mean is that our taxes and NI (and everyone elses) pay the pensions of the current retirees.

Essentially, a world that doesn't reproduce doesn't really work.

Anyway I am sure BelgianBeerGeek benefits from the state in ways that some of us who have kids don't. Should we suddenly have the right to opt out of specific services, I can't really see that working...