Is it time to fund state nurseries?

My DB went to a state nursery, a day nursery, in the 1950s in London when our widowed mother had to work. These were few and far between but they enabled people like her to work.
Now that same DB 's DGC attend state nurseries in Denmark where they seem to have a very good system of affordable childcare and all his DC are in work.

Scandinavian countries have excellent state funded nurseries. Yes income tax is higher but the population are largely supportive of the idea of paying for decent public services.

Private nurseries are already regulated and have to maintain standards, Doodledog. At least, the ones my GC attend are, so I assume it’s the same everywhere in the UK.

Oh, and to answer the question properly sorry - , I think that nursery education is important, and should be paid for by the state, as this means that they can be regulated and standards maintained. I feel that it is very important that young children are all given a good start to their education.

I don't think that anything should be means tested. Taxation of income (particularly unearned income) is much fairer, and would, if properly and rigorously applied, bring in enough to pay for both nurseries and care in later life.

Means testing penalises thrift, and removes the freedom to do as you wish with money you have earned. It also works against social mobility, as those who have just above whatever threshold is applied are not able to pass on money to the next generation to give them a better start in the way that the better off can. Each generation has to start from scratch. Taxation of inheritance would even that out, and be a lot fairer across the board.

Means testing puts all of the power in a household into the hands of the higher earner, as the whole household is denied means tested 'things' which the earner may be able to afford to buy, but not allow others to do. In functioning households this won't a problem, but it can be very difficult for members of dysfunctional ones to manage.

Personal pensions are not free, and if anyone who has saved into one is denied the same care/services/benefits as those who don't, then what is the point of saving? Again, means-testing in this way penalises those who do without in the short term in order to provide for later.

So the short answer, IMO, is yes - we should fund care at both ends of life, paid for from proper taxation at source, and not penalise those who, after tax, have saved for whatever they choose in their old age, whether that is care, world cruises, gifts to donkey sanctuaries or money for their children.

What would the difference be though, Gagajo? We're used to sending children to school early, so can't really do a comparison between those and children who take up formal education later, because that cohort doesn't exist in the UK, as far as I know.

I'd be interested to see such a study, if there is one.

I agree teaching too soon is bad. But there is a difference between teaching and learning through play, Montessori etc.

Children that are in nursery speak earlier. Children that speak earlier have higher levels of literacy. Not to mention better social skills.

oldgimmer1 if you are interested have a look at the EPPE study

Oldgimmer1 that’s formal education you’re speaking of. Finland has a very well developed system of informal Early Years education. In fact, upon looking it up, I discovered that they pay mothers to look after their children at home, as I suggested in an earlier post.

From Wiki.
In Finland, high class daycare and nursery-kindergarten are considered critical for developing the cooperation and communication skills important to prepare young children for lifelong education, as well as formal learning of reading and mathematics. This preparatory period lasts until the age of 7.

Finnish early childhood education emphasizes respect for each child’s individuality and chance for each child to develop as a unique person. Finnish early educators also guide children in the development of social and interactive skills, encourage them to pay attention to other people’s needs and interests, to care about others, and to have a positive attitude toward other people, other cultures, and different environments.

And

Finland has had access to free universal daycare for children aged eight months to five years in place since 1990, and a year of "preschool/kindergarten" at age six, since 1996. "Daycare" includes both full-day childcare centers and municipal playgrounds with adult supervision where parents can accompany the child. Municipalities also pay mothers who wish to do so to remain at home and provide "home daycare" for the first three years.

I don't believe early years education is of any particular benefit. The Finnish children don't start compulsory education until 7: they don't seem to be disadvantaged by it.

The British populace pay in PLENTY in tax and National Insurance to properly fund education.

NOT funding education properly, so those at the bottom don't get properly educated (1 of the last 2 UK schools I worked in permanently excluded over HALF of the students - academisation) costs a lot more. Social workers, out sourced education, benefits for life when they're unemployable.

Children at the bottom of the heap need nursery and education the very most. It's how they raise themselves up out of poverty.

The question shouldn't be 'Can we afford to fund nursery education.' It should be 'Can we afford NOT to fund nursery education.'

In the 70s when I started work in Bradford there were council run nurseries, which enabled single parents to work, and gave children from less advantaged families, the chance of early learning.
Sadly they have gone the way that most council run services have gone, and we have worshipped at the altar of privatisation.
Since the pandemic, the NHS, which was in the process of being privatised and being eyed up by US insurance companies, has suddenly been seen to be a wonderful national asset.
Let's hope that when we emerge from this pandemic, the value of council services will be re-evaluated, and it will be discovered that there can be a better way of running things, for the benefit of society, and which doesn't rely solely on profit.

MawB. Who are we supposed to be paying it back to? Where has it come from?

I'll give you a clue. Where did the QE, (£245 billion, wasn't it?), come from in 2008/9?

Perhaps you could just increase the child benefit to reflect the 'care' value of being an SAHM, SueDonim. I like your idea.

I've always thought it odd that caring for a child, or children, has a 'value' when it's not done by a parent.

Growstuff I agree that previous examples of inflation have been the result of exceptional circumstances.

What do you think these are?

MaizieD your question was WHO are we going to have to pay
My question is who is going to have to pay and the answer is simple - we are!

In that case why not pay a really decent state pension to the people to whom that is their only income.
I hasten to add that is not me, I have another adequate pension and would be happy to be means tested.
It would be the difference to some of living with dignity or deciding between food and heating in the winter.

I think the issue goes back even further than nursery education, to whether we value mother/parenthood. Being a stay-at-home-mother (SAHM) is generally looked down upon today, unless you can afford to be a yummy mummy type. As a SAHM you are ‘economically inactive’ and not contributing to the nation’s coffers.

Maybe we should put a value on child-rearing and pay parents an income to reflect that, which could then be used as payment towards nursery fees if the parents want to work outside the home. Though how you’d organise that, I’ve no idea, I’ll admit!

MawB Venezuela's problem was that its economy was linked to the petro dollar and wasn't truly independent. Germany's problems in the 1930s were caused by demands to repay repatriations for WW1.

During the current crisis, the UK is a sovereign currency issuing country. It's raised money from long term bonds (mainly). That money doesn't have to be repaid for ages and the people who have lent the money are quite happy to earn long-term interest. It will be a big, fat figure in the red on the country's balance, but it doesn't matter that much.

Without a magic money tree, where are the billions promised to cover furloughing

Well, that is another way of putting my question, MawB.

Where do you think it's coming from?

MaizieD you claim
The nation is not a business, it doesn't have to make a profit, or even 'balance the books

It does - that’s generally known as The Budget.

It issues its own money
Ay- there’s the rub!
May I refer you to the rampant inflation all over the world but especially in Germany in the 30’s?
Or more recently countries like Zimbabwe where inflation in 2019 reached 500%.
Or Venezuela where the rate of inflation in 2019 reached 9586%
That’s what happens when “Quantitative easing” = just printing money.

I don’t actually get your question MaixieD.
Without a magic money tree, where are the billions promised to cover furloughing, grants to small businesses, UC to a massively wider demographic.
If the solution is to print money, we will all pay the price with the inevitable inflation which follows.
Increased unemployment from the (hundreds of) thousands who will be losing their jobs means both a drop in taxation revenue, and a rise in benefit payments. Not to mention the probable attendant costs of MH issues.
A depressed economy will mean lower revenues from indirect taxation such as VAT, a depressed economy will also have a knock on effect on housing, sales and purchases so income from Stamp Duty will reduce.
So whom are we going to have to pay?
LSS - HMG in the form of massively raised taxes with or without further cuts in spending.

I think private nurseries are now very much saying that they will need some government money to survive. In other words it will cost whatever happens, because if those nurseries fold there will be thousands of parents who simply won't both be able to work. One of them will have to stay home What's the betting that it will be the mother?

MawB

Please tell me who we are going to have to 'pay for the last two months'.

Where do you think the money has come from?

Taxation doesn't fund spending, annsixty. That is a myth. A very convenient myth when it comes to governments persuading the populace that we 'can't afford' public services of any kind, or minimal services only.

See my previous post. Then tell me why we can't finance nursery education...