Mr Mystery is confused...

Good morning chums! Hope we're all bright eyed and bushy tailed!

Currently lounging in bed, and for some reason, thinking about why Nursery places are so damned expensive. You see, in Britain at the moment it's the height of political fashion to lay the blame for the financial climate at the door of those on benefits, simply (and grossly unfairly for the most part) painting them as work shy layabouts. Not that there's a great deal of non-anecdotal evidence to back those assertions.

Anyway, I happen to know a number of young families where both parents working just doesn't add up. Pour quoi? Childcare costs are astronomic, to the degree that many jobs would literally cover the additional cost and reduction in benefits, rendering the whole idea moot.

Then my brain ticked over, and would like to know that since we can offer free education to all from the age of 5-18 in the UK, why not include 3-5 year olds as well? Kids I know at that age are potty trained, and have a couple of free days of nursery already.

Sure it costs money from the tax payer, but think of the benefit to all involved. Kids would start school better socialised, and used to a formalised learning environment. This is only a good thing. Parents are then freed up to work, and again contrary to the media inflicted opinion, most want to work. Means they earn their money, and the benefit bill reduces a bit.

I know I've grossly oversimplified the matter, but for the above reasons, free nursery for all kids simply makes sense, no?

Aha. I didn't know it was political fashion to lay blame for the financial crisis on those on benefits - banker bashing is far more fashionable and common. And stupid given what percentage of GDP in the UK is based on our financial services.

It is somewhat de rigeur to claim that too much is being spent on benefits. On that point there is a debate but, nonetheless, whether you believe it or not, it is unfair that a government worker (the clue being in the title worker) is on a pay freeze - so real time lowering of standards of living - and benefits rise in line with the higher of RPI/CPI - to make sure benefits claimants maintain as closely as possible a similar level of wealth to what they had before said crisis. I know cost of living has gone up - but their incoming wage has also risen so a real term freeze rather than real term cut.

Use of the term benefits covers a wide spectrum - some persons getting housing benefit potentially could be in full or part time work - so again, you are correct in that it is unfair to call them all workshy. Actually though, there is a load of substantive, non-anecdotal evidence to point out to the confirmed existence of large numbers of 'workshy layabouts' - by which I would mean those whose entire existence is funded by the state, even though they are able bodied and capable of working. I myself have seen or read plenty of interviews with such creatures, who often quite happily admit that they get more for doing nothing than they would for working the naitonal minimum wage for a 38 hour week. This is why benefits absolutely must be capped at the level of the average wage - am I right in thinking the rough calculation is £26k?

Your idea baout potty trained 3-5 y.o.s doesn't always follow - what age was your child(ren) potty trained from? There are plenty who arrive at Junior School not toilet trained, as lackadaisical parents think someone else will do what they have failed to do. If you took the children off the parents hands, yes they would have the ability to go to work. But would they have the skills, inclination, and jobs to go to?

I think your train of thought - cheaper/free nursery = parents able to go to work + socialised children with better work ethic = less benefits overall + benefit claimants not stigmatised -

Regretably does not stand up to analysis. It is like socialism - a good idea but add in the realities of the darwinesque creature that is homo sapiens, and it doesn't stand scrutiny.

Would all take it up? Probably not. But I believe a significant proportion would.

For every layabout, there are dozens of people who would happily work if it made sense. Combined approach is a better way than simply slashing benefits.

Free childcare for all simply won't happen since as a nation we are dead set against tax rises. We could vastly improve numerous public services if we paid more tax, but we simply don't want to. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the economics would stack up. Would the increase in tax to pay for this be counter-balanced by more parents returning to work? Is the saving made by those working parents currently paying for childcare going to be more than the increase in their taxes? I'm not sure it would. Whilst it would be a popular vote winner if you could do it by cutting back on spending in another area, in reality that simply can't happen at the moment.

There is only 2 areas I could see for reduction in the budget - International Aid and the EU. I caveat that as reductions without upsetting somebody, such as benefits and the NHS, which I think are also ripe for reduction. I certainly wouldn't be paying for any boob jobs, penis enlargement or gender reassignment on the NHS - if you can't take the hand The gods dealt you, I suggest you get saving...

On the subject on childcare, while that would be heavily beneficial, I doubt it would actually happen. Especially considering often times the cost of childcare exceeds the finances you would gain from having a job. I know many parents that one stays home because they just cannot justify the cost of childcare when it costs less to just have one parent stay home. It is crazy just how much it costs, but then again, those people caring for the children have to make a living too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

There is only 2 areas I could see for reduction in the budget - International Aid and the EU. I caveat that as reductions without upsetting somebody, such as benefits and the NHS, which I think are also ripe for reduction. I certainly wouldn't be paying for any boob jobs, penis enlargement or gender reassignment on the NHS - if you can't take the hand The gods dealt you, I suggest you get saving...

---

You say that as if Gender Reassignment surgery is just as cosmetic and pointless as breast augmentation and penis enlargements when that is just not the case. It is an accepted and highly successful treatment to a debilitating condition known as Gender Dysphoria. Which this is caused by a huge difference between one's birth sex and one's gender identity, which leads to long lists of anxiety and depression issues that takes away from a persons ability to contribute to society due to a list of issues involved. The world health organization recognizes this procedure as a means of therepy that has an extremely high success rate in making these people balance contributing members of society. So please educate yourself before dismissing and equating things that aren't even equitable.

Child care for us before Imogen started school last year was £750 plus pcm. Luckily the business my wife works for have a scheme where they refund the VAT on their employes child care costs as long as they are using registered nurserys or child minders.

But it's little wonder one parent decides to stay home instead, I couldn't because I am self employed and the wife had too good a job to give it up. Plus it ment the kids got to mix with other children and I think it did them some good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlift

Child care for us before Imogen started school last year was £750 plus pcm. Luckily the business my wife works for have a scheme where they refund the VAT on their employes child care costs as long as they are using registered nurserys or child minders.

But it's little wonder one parent decides to stay home instead, I couldn't because I am self employed and the wife had too good a job to give it up. Plus it ment the kids got to mix with other children and I think it did them some good.

---

unless someone has social anxiety issues, or Autism Spectrum Disorders, oftentimes the socialization is good for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

There is only 2 areas I could see for reduction in the budget - International Aid and the EU. I caveat that as reductions without upsetting somebody, such as benefits and the NHS, which I think are also ripe for reduction. I certainly wouldn't be paying for any boob jobs, penis enlargement or gender reassignment on the NHS - if you can't take the hand The gods dealt you, I suggest you get saving...

---

We could save a whole bunch of money by not getting involved in pointless and unwinnable wars in the arse end of nowhere, but reductions in defence spending never seem to be high on the agenda of any party. They are only doing it now because they get away with it under the umbrella of cutting everything. International aid probably needs reform and a more careful overview of who we are giving it to, but I would argue that we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. I for one am glad that government ring-fenced international aid as one of the areas they won't cut. Like wise the NHS needs reform but any saving generated by that need to be put straight back into the NHS, not spent on new initiatives.
Greater communication between departments would also help save a bunch of money. I read a laughable article today in the Times that whilst Defra is planning to cull badgers in a futile attempt to stop the spread of bovine TB, the Transport department are planning to include badger 'tunnels' under all new road and rail developments so they can cross them safely. :confused:

The cost of childcare is stupendous, I would suggest to any body attending antenatal classes to befriend their peers and set up their own childcare nursery, though some plannign might be nice so you have all the relevant qualifications/safety checks in place.

There are problems within the civil service about things appearing value for money. Recently there have been issues with agencies, such as the NHS who are buying things at way above market price, similarly for schools for ICT equipment, some of the rental fees work out many times the cost of the object.
Then there are issues of empire building, a sub-group of one body I work alongside has a very clear remit of what it is and isn't to do, and yet this sub-body has managed to spend millions developing policies and procedures that go against its parental bodies own policies, and covers what another sub-group is doing, but rather than discipline them nothing happens and they continue to do things out of scope.