Should a couple on £300k be eligible for Govt. subsidised childcare?

[Zamo]

You have it the wrong way round, it's the poor that is going to subsidise the rich.

 

The poorest do not make a positive financial contribution to the nations coffers (if they did we'd have a national surplus instead of a huge national debt) so it is impossible for them to be subsidising anyone.

 

The amount of subsidy that can be offered to the poor is obviously lowered if you also give it to some well off people but it doesn't change the fact that rich are still the ones doing all the subsidising.

[barleycorn]

The poorest do not make a positive financial contribution to the nations coffers (if they did we'd have a national surplus instead of a huge national debt) so it is impossible for them to be subsidising anyone.

 

The amount of subsidy that can be offered to the poor is obviously lowered if you also give it to some well off people but it doesn't change the fact that rich are still the ones doing all the subsidising.

 

Depends how you look at it... it could be argued that the poor are subsidising the rich by virtue of high wages at one of the scale at the expense of low wages at the other.

 

jb

[Zamo]

Depends how you look at it... it could be argued that the poor are subsidising the rich by virtue of high wages at one of the scale at the expense of low wages at the other.

 

jb

 

LOL. You should go work as a Labour party spin doctor!

 

I personally think you're taking a little too much artisitc licence in how you are defining subsidy... funny though.

[salsafan]

Let's create an EPETITION !!

 

Don't just talk the talk, but WALK the WALK.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2014 at 16:39 ----------

 

For a couple with one parent at home until child starts school and the other on minimum wage.

....

Birth rates in the UK are declining. We currently have the lowest birthrate since records began in 1924.

If you want to decrease birthrates globally then you need to be looking at improving healthcare and education, particularly for women, globally.

 

jb

 

Why are you that surprised? I am told that I am a man and not a woman, all based on that person's assumption. Obviously it's true. Then there is this harassment of others not actually caring at all for what you want, but to discredit what you do want. To survive in this country, you got to fight for your right to live. How ridiculous is that ?

 

Obviously, that makes me feel so safe in wanting to bring a child into this society.

 

Many children as I can see are born out of convenience and not necessarily planned. As people do not seem to save money in order to have kids, and keep them or to want them. We have become *that* kind of society whereby we chase a career for self fulfillment and not find fulfillment from bringing up the next generation. And yes, we have to babysit adults these days. Rather than to work with adults. That is what we do. That evolutionary cycle is broken.

[anywebsite]

And create more public sector workers. Whose pensions will be subsidised from the tax payer.

 

So, why is that worse than paying more for subsidising private companies who are making large profits at the expense of the taxpayer? ~£10k a year per child.

 

Alternatively what are the staffing requirements for nurseries these days? Is there room to cut it to provide a cheaper service? More kids per adult? Maybe there's room to cut the qualification requirements too.

 

Childcare is necessary to get women back into work faster & cut inequality, but the current costs seem unaffordable for most people without a large government subsidy.

[lily may]

Why would they be staffed by public sector workers?

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2014 at 07:34 ----------

 

 

Why would that work?

 

Because if they are state nurseries it will be council staff that are employed.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2014 at 22:30 ----------

 

So, why is that worse than paying more for subsidising private companies who are making large profits at the expense of the taxpayer? ~£10k a year per child.

 

Alternatively what are the staffing requirements for nurseries these days? Is there room to cut it to provide a cheaper service? More kids per adult? Maybe there's room to cut the qualification requirements too.

 

Childcare is necessary to get women back into work faster & cut inequality, but the current costs seem unaffordable for most people without a large government subsidy.

 

A childminder gets on average £5 ph. Would you work for that Are the people who look after our children worth less than other workers..

[Cyclone]

Wouldn't the market rate just go up in line with the subsidy?

 

That would create an opening for a new player to start business and undercut all the existing nurseries. Thus quickly stealing customers and still making a profit.

 

So no, in theory the free market will maintain the true market rate no matter who is paying, parents or government.

That rate being determined by the need to pay overheads, the requirement to make a profit and the ability of companies to enter and exit the market. There are low barriers to entry and exit, so the price should be pretty free to move.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2014 at 08:32 ----------

 

In a picky mood today?

No, it makes a massive difference.

 

No, it generally isn't 1 to 1 but even with ratios of 6-1 a childcare business will have to pay additional staff to cover breaks, training, sickness and holidays, which eats into the saving realised by sharing childcare costs with other customers. And then the saving from sharing services with other customers are eaten up even further as the other costs are added to the bill e.g. management costs, premises, business rates, profit margins etc.

A single self employed child minder can mind 6 (if that's the legal limit), she doesn't have any over heads, doesn't need to hire anyone else, and so she can charge 1/6th of minimum wage (if her target were to be paid minimum wage).

 

As you've said, there is a competative market out there so the only real squeeze that could be made to reduce costs further (without breaking the law re ratios) would be to squeeze pay, which would really require a reduction in the minimum wage rate. And even if minimum wage was reduced it would not make childcare any more afordable for the lowest earners because their wages will keep pace i.e. go down too. My point stands... childcare costs will always be borderline uneconomical (and always poor value for money in terms of net gain) for those earning close to minimum wage. The only way to address it is to provide subsidy or tax breaks.

Or to increase the maximum ratio of minder to children. That's the key thing that actually determines the cost.

[L00b]

A single self employed child minder can mind 6 (if that's the legal limit), she doesn't have any over heads, doesn't need to hire anyone else, and so she can charge 1/6th of minimum wage (if her target were to be paid minimum wage).

I know it's only an example, but to say that she (or he, let's get with the times ) does not have any overheads is too much of an oversimplification IMHO.

 

Besides the costs associated with basic regulatory requirements (std business costs, e.g. personal liability insurance, and market-specific, e.g. first aid training), for minding 6 kids 8 hours a day (assumed duration), she will need 6 beds, cutlery for 6, food for 6, toys and accessories for 6, <etc.>

 

Much overheads indeed, even if the childminder "aims at" coming out with minimum wage only.

[ivanava]

A single self employed child minder can mind 6 (if that's the legal limit), she doesn't have any over heads, doesn't need to hire anyone else, and so she can charge 1/6th of minimum wage (if her target were to be paid minimum wage).

Or to increase the maximum ratio of minder to children. That's the key thing that actually determines the cost.

 

Other than wear and tear to the house hold, heating, electricity, phone, insurance, petrol, toys, paper, nappies, food, drinks, to name but a few.

The size of the house also determines the amounts of kids up to a maximum of 6 under 8 years old, but only one under one year old, Its also very unlikely they will all be full time and all cared for at the same time, 14 hour days are not uncommon, and some of the time only one child is being cared for at £2.5 to £3 an hour.

[I1L2T3]

That would create an opening for a new player to start business and undercut all the existing nurseries. Thus quickly stealing customers and still making a profit.

 

So no, in theory the free market will maintain the true market rate no matter who is paying, parents or government.

That rate being determined by the need to pay overheads, the requirement to make a profit and the ability of companies to enter and exit the market. There are low barriers to entry and exit, so the price should be pretty free to move.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2014 at 08:32 ----------

 

No, it makes a massive difference.

A single self employed child minder can mind 6 (if that's the legal limit), she doesn't have any over heads, doesn't need to hire anyone else, and so she can charge 1/6th of minimum wage (if her target were to be paid minimum wage).

Or to increase the maximum ratio of minder to children. That's the key thing that actually determines the cost.

 

Childminders definitely do have overheads. They have to heat and light their home. They have to provide a safe and secure environment. They have to provide an educational environment. They are subject to Ofsted inspection. If they provide food they casn be subject to food hygiene inspections. They may have to drop and collect kids from school. They may have to arrange outings etc.. They have to keep records and of course run what is effectively a small business.

 

Would you or could you do all this for minimum wage? I would say the absolute bottom line for providing such a service would be approx £3/hour per child.

 

You don't have kids do you?