£2K/year/child for child care

wannabecyclist

[*]

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

So how would a family on the average income of 25k survive if one of the parents stay at home? Basic income and expenses below, very tight to live by this budget and if you need to fix a car or anything in the house you are in trouble. So due to the current cost of living both parents need to work, hence thr problem, child care costs too much so it is still too tight!

Salary 1500
Child Benefit 86

Total Income 1586

Expenses

Rent 650
Council Tax 120
Gas 50
Electric 40
Water 25
Food 340
Work Meals 25
Home Insurance 12
Car running 140
Mobile Phone 40
Landlandline 16
Life insurance 15
Internet/Sky 12
TV Licence 13
Clothing 50
Dental 13
Sundries 22

Total Expenses 1583

Disposable Income 3

ballysmate

wannabecyclist wrote:

[*]

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

So how would a family on the average income of 25k survive if one of the parents stay at home? Basic income and expenses below, very tight to live by this budget and if you need to fix a car or anything in the house you are in trouble. So due to the current cost of living both parents need to work, hence thr problem, child care costs too much so it is still too tight!

Salary 1500
Child Benefit 86

Total Income 1586

Expenses

Rent 650
Council Tax 120
Gas 50
Electric 40
Water 25
Food 340
Work Meals 25
Home Insurance 12
Car running 140
Mobile Phone 40
Landlandline 16
Life insurance 15
Internet/Sky 12
TV Licence 13
Clothing 50
Dental 13
Sundries 22

Total Expenses 1583

Disposable Income 3

People cite financial reasons and if they are in a position where they have to put food on the table, then fine.

In which case you would probably fall into this category.

ballysmate

MattC59 wrote:

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

Would that be Matt VTech C59 in honour of the great man?

BelgianBeerGeek

nathancom wrote:

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...

I'm not sure that I do benefit from the state any more than anyone else - I do not receive any tax credits or benefits from the state. Hence my appearing so bitter :P

I have no problem with people wanting to reproduce, I just don't think the state should be giving people money for doing so. If you feel the need to have kids, I hope there are better reasons for doing so other than making a worker unit who can pay lots in tax to support some pensioners.

wannabecyclist

What I don't understand is why childcare is so expensive. We pay £60 a day and I believe it is about 5 children to 1 staff member. The staff members themselves tend to be paid close to minimum wage so someone is doing very well out of it!

MattC59

Ballysmate wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

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

Would that be Matt VTech C59 in honour of the great man?

Ha !
I wouldn't burden my child with the connection.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

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

That's me as well fella.

I accept not everyone has family nearby but as also has been said, I too believe until a child starts school then one parent should be at home to care for them.Being raised by your parents is the best for the child and society.

As an aside I do believe in universal child benefit but limit it to two children. A policy I have espoused long before IDS :shock: That is the enigma that is Frank the tank. For an insight into the real me you'd have to sit round a table full of ale or coffee and cake, as a certain Random man would verify.

rhext

Some of you lot need to understand the difference between 'giving' and 'not taking away'. This is a tax credit isn't it?

Our hypothetical (and extremely unusual) pair of high-earners will be paying over £100K of that into the treasury between them. In what sense is this a handout?

drlodge

rhext wrote:

Some of you lot need to understand the difference between 'giving' and 'not taking away'. This is a tax credit isn't it?

Our hypothetical (and extremely unusual) pair of high-earners will be paying over £100K of that into the treasury between them. In what sense is this a handout?

That's a good point - this is essentialy tax relief on child care csots. So someone earning £100k will be paying a lot in tax anyway, now it will be up to £2k less tax. So they are still net contributors by a long shot.

I too agree with the principle that you should ony have children if you can afford them, but this is not the argument to use when opposing this scheme. By making child care costs less, it encourages more people [parents] to work and hence pumps more money into the economy, which benefits us all. So yes, it might seem an "odd" policy when you look at particular affluent individuals who will benefit, but the supposed benfits are far wider reaching.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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

That's me as well fella.

I accept not everyone has family nearby but as also has been said, I too believe until a child starts school then one parent should be at home to care for them.Being raised by your parents is the best for the child and society.

As an aside I do believe in universal child benefit but limit it to two children. A policy I have espoused long before IDS :shock: That is the enigma that is Frank the tank. For an insight into the real me you'd have to sit round a table full of ale or coffee and cake, as a certain Random man would verify.

Have I passed through some sort of wormhole? On the same side as Pina AND Frank?
Bloody hell!!

RedWheels

loads of people are mentioning this don't have children if you can't afford them

What does 'afford to have children' mean?
What classifies someone as too poor for reproduction?

Pross

Members of the electorate in 'this policy doesn't benefit me so I'll moan about it' shock

BTW I should say that it doesn't benefit me either but I have no problem with it although I would rather it was phased down based on earnings.

nathancom

Pross wrote:

Members of the electorate in 'this policy doesn't benefit me so I'll moan about it' shock

BTW I should say that it doesn't benefit me either but I have no problem with it although I would rather it was phased down based on earnings.

I imagine the costs of administering that would outweigh the savings. But I can understand the concept behind it.

I like the idea of certain universal benefits. It makes it harder for subsequent governments to remove them without upsetting almost everyone.

florerider

If I had seen this coming I would have bought a nursery and charged £8000 a year knowing I could soon increase my fees to the £10k cap and collect another £2000 without my customers having to pay a penny more.

tomhammersley

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

nathancom wrote:

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...

I'm not sure that I do benefit from the state any more than anyone else - I do not receive any tax credits or benefits from the state. Hence my appearing so bitter :P

I have no problem with people wanting to reproduce, I just don't think the state should be giving people money for doing so. If you feel the need to have kids, I hope there are better reasons for doing so other than making a worker unit who can pay lots in tax to support some pensioners.

It's *really* difficult to argue about what you perceive to receive from the state.

Maybe you don't receive direct financial benefits right now as a working-age adult. But consider all the education you received as a child. All the free healthcare. Much of the stuff you currently receive from the state will be intangible, or only visible when you come to use it. E.g., you can't see the policing you are currently benefiting from until it is taken away.

At the time of your childhood, no doubt there were people around advancing similar arguments as to why they shouldn't have to pay for other's kids. We all give and we've all taken. What goes around comes around.

BelgianBeerGeek

TomHammersley wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

nathancom wrote:

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...

I'm not sure that I do benefit from the state any more than anyone else - I do not receive any tax credits or benefits from the state. Hence my appearing so bitter :P

I have no problem with people wanting to reproduce, I just don't think the state should be giving people money for doing so. If you feel the need to have kids, I hope there are better reasons for doing so other than making a worker unit who can pay lots in tax to support some pensioners.

It's *really* difficult to argue about what you perceive to receive from the state.

Maybe you don't receive direct financial benefits right now as a working-age adult. But consider all the education you received as a child. All the free healthcare. Much of the stuff you currently receive from the state will be intangible, or only visible when you come to use it. E.g., you can't see the policing you are currently benefiting from until it is taken away.

At the time of your childhood, no doubt there were people around advancing similar arguments as to why they shouldn't have to pay for other's kids. We all give and we've all taken. What goes around comes around.

I am aware of that, hence my qualification "more than anyone else".
Free stuff? Oh yeah, the ambulance ride I had once. And they didn't charge for it! And new shiny cop cars - free! And the army - I don't pay for that either!
There is no such thing as free. Taxes are extorted from me to pay for all this stuff.

twist83

So do I get anything for choosing NOT to have children with my other half?

Kids YUCK!

Pross

twist83 wrote:

So do I get anything for choosing NOT to have children with my other half?

Kids YUCK!

Yes, as others have pointed out - someone to pay the costs of providing you with services when you get beyond working age. With ageing populations more than ever the retired of a generation will be depending on the taxes of those still in their working life.

Of course it isn't a consideration when deciding to have a family but it's the reason successive governments have provide tax breaks / benefits for parents. It isn't out of the goodness of their hearts or even to win votes (parents are presumably as equally spread politically as the general populace). If people all chose not to have kids then the UK would become like a larger, worse version of all those rural villages where the youngsters have moved out. It's happening in countries in the developing world.

It's lucky that some are prepared to undergo the pain and financial hardship of bringing up kids for the benefit of the selfish who don't

bdu98252

If we are looking at it from a purely financial perspective then it is clear the a person under the age of 16 is a drain on the state. Anyone not economically active in the work place is also a drain. Therefore the argument follows that we should test intelligence and aptitude in children early and kill them if they are below average and anyone over 16 who is not economically active we kill them too. This will save a lot of money as long as there is not any checks and balances in the system. Anyone want to live in this type of world.

People preaching about rich people getting it easy and taking hand outs should think about what the world would really look like when punitive tax regimes are followed. I pay a lot of tax and expect something in return. When I say return I do not consider paying for others out with my family a return but I do appreciate the argument that some services should be provided universally regardless of contribution.

drlodge

I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.

Gazzaputt

twist83 wrote:

So do I get anything for choosing NOT to have children with my other half?

Kids YUCK!

No you don't. kids yuck? Wasn't you a snotty nosed brat once?

No-one here mentioned that how with kids do you expect us parents to keep our bike habit up? Need some financial help.

Some very short sightedness been stated here.

Pross

drlodge wrote:

I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.

Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.

nathancom

Pross wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.

Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.

And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in, or leave.

drlodge

nathancom wrote:

And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in.

Even if the tax rate were the same across the abord (20%) the rich would pay more tax by virtue of them earning more. But they get a double whammy by being taxed also at a higher rate.

How exactly do you define "should pay more back in" - in absolute terms or as a percentage of their gross compared to less well off people.

Its an odd statement to make, since the rich do not benefit as much [from society] as those who earn very little; rich people are net contributors, poor people are net consumers. Actually I really don't understand what you are trying to say :?

nathancom

drlodge wrote:

nathancom wrote:

And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in.

Even if the tax rate were the same across the abord (20%) the rich would pay more tax by virtue of them earning more. But they get a double whammy by being taxed also at a higher rate.

How exactly do you define "should pay more back in" - in absolute terms or as a percentage of their gross compared to less well off people.

Its an odd statement to make, since the rich do not benefit as much [from society] as those who earn very little; rich people are net contributors, poor people are net consumers. Actually I really don't understand what you are trying to say :?

Rich people wouldn't be rich if it weren't for a whole range of civil institutions than enable society to function. This is the primary role of the state: we give up part of our wealth and freedom to the state so that civil institutions might be sustained to our benefit, whether than be freedom from crime, hostile invasion, disease or the opportunity to work and earn money, to access justice or to receive an eduction.

Those who earn the most benefit economically the most from this tacit/hypothetical contract between the individual and the state therefore they should make the largest contribution to the continued support of the state.

The Rich benefit most from the Police as they have the most property, the Rich benefit most from the National Health service as it provides a healthy workforce from which they derive their wealth, the Rich benefit most from the army since it again protects their property from external threats, the Rich benefit most from the courts since it provides an independent arbiter for property conflicts (the vast majority of legal activity has nothing to do with crime).

It is only correct that the Rich pay a greater percentage of their income in tax because they clearly benefit exponentially more than those who earn less. Hence why we do not have a linear tax system: it simply wouldn't address the inequity of benefit those who are wealthier derive from the state compared to the poor.

Notice not even the Tories talk of abolishing the top rate of tax, only the rate at which it is charged. It is a fundamentally fair concept and one that has grown out of a historical settlement between rich and poor in UK over the last 200 years.

feltkuota

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

Given the age of your children, I'm pretty sure you/ your wife would have been receiving child allowance.

feltkuota

Pross wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.

Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.

If earning £1m you'd be paying 45% tax, grater NI contributions and have no personal allowances

alan_sherman

The trouble with all state schemes is that they take 'x' amount of money to give an amount 'y' to some group.

The trouble is that x is much bigger than y due to the bureaucracy in between.

I'm a firm believer that schemes to get the pot of y money to people that are actually paying tax (so x) are a bad idea. Just lower the amount of tax that is taken! So keeping the 40% rate static whilst allowing this childcare allowance to 'some' seems very wrong to me. Even those that benefit would probably be better overall if the 40% tax rate was raised and this scheme never even existed!

Thee flip side is that I don't see the point in taxing poorer people to then 'give back' benefits. So the rise in tax free allowance is a good thing in my book.


Due to my circumstances I which a transferable married persons tax allowance would be made policy. But hey - thay was just an election manifesto promise so will never happen :roll:

Monkeypump

nathancom wrote:

drlodge wrote:

nathancom wrote:

And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in.

Even if the tax rate were the same across the abord (20%) the rich would pay more tax by virtue of them earning more. But they get a double whammy by being taxed also at a higher rate.

How exactly do you define "should pay more back in" - in absolute terms or as a percentage of their gross compared to less well off people.

Its an odd statement to make, since the rich do not benefit as much [from society] as those who earn very little; rich people are net contributors, poor people are net consumers. Actually I really don't understand what you are trying to say :?

Rich people wouldn't be rich if it weren't for a whole range of civil institutions than enable society to function. This is the primary role of the state: we give up part of our wealth and freedom to the state so that civil institutions might be sustained to our benefit, whether than be freedom from crime, hostile invasion, disease or the opportunity to work and earn money, to access justice or to receive an eduction.

Those who earn the most benefit economically the most from this tacit/hypothetical contract between the individual and the state therefore they should make the largest contribution to the continued support of the state.

The Rich benefit most from the Police as they have the most property, the Rich benefit most from the National Health service as it provides a healthy workforce from which they derive their wealth, the Rich benefit most from the army since it again protects their property from external threats, the Rich benefit most from the courts since it provides an independent arbiter for property conflicts (the vast majority of legal activity has nothing to do with crime).

It is only correct that the Rich pay a greater percentage of their income in tax because they clearly benefit exponentially more than those who earn less. Hence why we do not have a linear tax system: it simply wouldn't address the inequity of benefit those who are wealthier derive from the state compared to the poor.

Notice not even the Tories talk of abolishing the top rate of tax, only the rate at which it is charged. It is a fundamentally fair concept and one that has grown out of a historical settlement between rich and poor in UK over the last 200 years.

What is your cut-off point for 'rich' or 'not rich'?

Are you suggesting that anyone paying the higher tax should pay an even higher percentage of income tax?

A large part of my tax deduction is at the higher rate. Am I therefore rich? Because if so, somebody forgot to tell me...

Pross

nathancom wrote:

Pross wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.

Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.

And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in, or leave.

In what way do they benefit the most? Some will have got there by luck, some by knowing the right people and some but sheer hard work. I'm not sure it has anything to do with benefitting from society. Would you really want the entrepeneurs that start up companies to leave? I'll add here I'm moderately well paid but can't ever see a situation where I'll be worried about paying super tax. I just don't see why there's a need for the percentage to be higher when they already pay more in absolute terms. It's the politics of envy.