Besides the Employer Vouchers and the Childcare Element of Working Tax Credits, there is of course the grandaddy of them all, Nursery Vouchers, introduced by the Tories in the 1990s, subjected to the usual local/national government and left/rights spats, and promptly scrapped by Labour in 1998 and replaced with ... er ... Nursery Vouchers. Only they were renamed, then rebranded Sure Start, then split off again as Early Years Funding and for the past couple of years have been known as Early Education Funding.
As an alternative to Sure Start (two-and-a-half hours free nursery a day at a State nursery for three and four year olds), which might give Mum a nice break in the morning but is no use to a woman with a job, you can choose the vouchers instead. Despite some confusion over how the amount affects your nursery bill, in practice it's relatively straightforward. All the parent has to do is tick a box and the nursery claims 39 weeks a year x 12.5 hours x £3.30 (the £ figure appears to vary by local authority), divides it by 52 and knocks £30-odd off the weekly nursery bill for kids aged three or four.
The vouchers are non-contributory, non-taxable, non-means tested, and in my experience, the scheme works fine. As The Lass started private school before she was five, her school deducted the vouchers from the first term's fees. Sweet.
So what have we got ... the vouchers worth £30 per child per week (as long as they're three or four years old); the Childcare Element of Tax Credits that are worth a maximum of £44 per child per week (much less in most cases) for an average income family (but are savagely means-tested); and Employer Vouchers which are no use to an average income family but are worth about £23 per week to a higher rate taxpayer (let's assume one working parent per child for simplicity) who qualify for next to nothing in Tax Credits.
Hey ... I've an idea, can't we scrap all the overlaps, chuck all the schemes into a pot, stir it round a bit and replace them with vouchers worth £70 a week for each child aged two to four or something?
A grim document
13 hours ago
10 comments:
Or, you could pay for the upkeep of your own flipping children yourself. Is this, along with the TV poll tax, another thing you are proposing to fund by LVT?
"Or, you could pay for the upkeep of your own flipping children yourself.
That idea has some merit, but if you made people do that, they'd have to delay having kids until they were in their forties and the mortgage was nearly paid off and they could afford one parent to give up work.
"Is this ... another thing you are proposing to fund by LVT?"
Nope. It's a straight replacement for the other three schemes described. The £70 is just the total cost of current schemes divided by two million kids at nursery. I am primarily a simplification campaigner.
Sod it, raise the tax bar and lose all this shit altogether.
That idea has some merit, but if you made people do that, they'd have to delay having kids until they were in their forties and the mortgage was nearly paid off and they could afford one parent to give up work.
You could use that argument to say the state should pay for housing, i.e. if they didn't, people couldn't afford kids, dog, swinging parties, whatever.
Why on earth should I pay tax to subsidise other peoples poor financial and family planning? I know plenty of people, none of whom have highly paid jobs, who have managed on a single income. They made hard financial decisions and decided that they could cut out thinks that were less important, in order to have that which was important to them. So, you can't afford kids and a mortgage? Fine. Rent. Or put it off for a few years while you save to that one of you can take a 5 year break. Or worj part time.
Having the state meddle in childcare also lets employers off the hook ~ they have no incentive to set up their own nursery schemes for valuable employee's as, hey, the state will pay. Or, more importantly, everyone without kids will pay ~ those who can't keep their cock in their pants until the bank balance says yes get a free ride.
I'm staggered you think this is an area for state funding.
I'm staggered you think this is an area for state funding.
Whether it is an area for State (i.e. taxpayer funding, i.e. redistribution), is a different topic.
This is about simplification and, as it happens, having less rich-to-poor (or 'hardworking-to-feckless' as you would have it) redistribution, while retaining middle aged-to-young redistribution.
So it's an interest-free loan, really. Do interest free loans distort decision-making? Probably yes. Do they distort it much? Probably no.
In fact, you've either contradicted yourself or missed the point with this:
Having the state meddle in childcare also lets employers off the hook ~ they have no incentive to set up their own nursery schemes for valuable employees as, hey, the state will pay.
I am talking about vouchers - which would cover about half the cost of a private nursery of the parents' choice. So this is the State butting out of provision at least. Which leads on to education vouchers generally.
As to employers, why should they get involved in childcare or childcare vouchers? They pay an employee what he or she is worth. If the employee happens to be a parent and decide to spend some of their salary on their children, so what? Or would you argue that employers should provide car servicing facilities for valuable employees who happen to be car-owners etc?
In fact, you've either contradicted yourself or missed the point with this:
Value of states' voucher = x
Value of contribution = 'y'
Now, what is the minimum anybody will now charge for nursery places, irrespective of demand?
As to employers, why should they get involved in childcare or childcare vouchers? They pay an employee what he or she is worth.
Yes, and if they think they can tempt a valuable employee, male or female, by provision of nursery assistance, the good ones will. Just as they provide shiney company cars for people who aren't on the road. If they don't, good execs will piss off to a company that does.
Or would you argue that employers should provide car servicing facilities for valuable employees who happen to be car-owners etc?
See above.
Value of voucher = x ...
Fair point, but nurseries aren't rocket science, so in the absence of existing humungous administrative hurdles (protecting incumbents) extra returns will be competed away. "X" in my example is only half the cost. So the minimum they'd charge is ... er ... half the cost.
And for sure, large employers may well offer on-site nurseries or car servicing or hairdressers or anything else. Good luck to them. Small employers can't get economies of scale for this. Different topic.
All employers/employees can make the trade off between offering a pay rise or a shiny new car. The tax rules on cars are so savage, you're usually better off with a pay rise and claiming mileage allowance. Different topic.
Why not have state run nursery/childcare establishments that are free at point of use and that are open when needed? Gets more people out to work and cuts down on the tax credit confusion.
Because I am against State provision. Vouchers to cover half the cost of a private nursery is much better all round.
Post a Comment