The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Cash could be better spent outside daycare > Comments

Cash could be better spent outside daycare : Comments

By Jennifer Buckingham, published 26/10/2007

Well-designed child care programs can be effective for children from socio-economically disadvantaged families, but it does not justify public funding for the expansion of universal child care.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
From a purely financial standpoint regarding the cost of Child Care to the community - if a woman is working and sending her kids to Child Care the community is vastly better off in terms of tax/benefits than if she was staying at home. The Child Care rebates are far less than the amount of Family Tax Benefit that I would receive if I were not working... and the community would miss out on the tax taken from my income.

I am fortunate enough to have my son in a community based child care centre for 2 days a week. He started going when he was 10 months old... and at the beginning it was terrible and heartwrenching for both of us to leave him there. But I have been there during the day, I have seen how they operate and have also seen the interaction he has with his friends there that I cannot provide. From this experience I cannot recommend good quality child care highly enough.

FYI in the 70's is was called Child Endowment... my parents went over the income threshhold when I was about 6-7, just as my parter and I are over the threshold for FTB part A and not eligible for part B.

Perhaps some of the closed minded prior posters could consider the cost of benefits if all working mothers quit and stayed home to look after the kids, how far taxes would need to be raised to meet those costs, where the skills shortage would be at, what level immigration would need to be raised to meet labour demands, how many more houses would be required to be built to house the immigrants, what level inflation would reach, the subsequent effect on our environment, and if we would stumble into recession or even depression because of it.
Posted by Meelamay, Monday, 29 October 2007 11:37:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I'm one of those women who is deserving of scorn, but have to wonder where blokes are in these decisions...in the posts so far it appears only women make these decisions for families (or maybe they're just the ones we like to blame?).

My partner and I share the care of our son, and he spends some time in childcare each week. When he goes to four-year-old kinder next year he will marginally increase his time outside our care - but no one's arguing you should keep your kids home from kinder, nor is anyone arguing that the state shouldn't fund it.

The care my son has received from the two centres we have used has been excellent. But I worry about whether childcare workers are paid a fair wage. I worry that they themsleves couldn't use their own services if they needed to. Increased investment in childcare is not just about reducing costs for individual families, it's also about valuing the work of childcare workers.

Incidental to all of this is a theme in this thread that children are somehow a singular concern for families. This simply isn't the case, and hasn't been for over a century - governments have financially supported care for children since Federation. Unless people are planning on being their own doctor, aged care worker, nurse, accountant, road worker, bus driver and the rest, then we all have a responsibility to support the next generation, in the same way that we have a responsibility to care for those who came before us, as they supported us.
Posted by seether, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:30:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most research in this field has been done in the US, where many different early-intervention programmes have been implemented and analysed. My reading of the US literature and of Heckman’s work is that some relatively intensive and holistic interventions in disadvantaged families have led to benefits for the children, their families and their society. The main gain is that children likely to have gone on to crime and imprisonment have had a much better chance of being integrated in society and avoiding gaol.

This can not to be generalised to suggest that all early interventions for all children will have net benefits. I have three children; they’re now 19-25, but if they were in care with the maximum benefit offered by Kevin Rudd, my income would be greater than it now is. This can not be a sensible use of public funds.

Heckman strongly supports an holistic approach to policy. He argues that in evaluating a human capital investment strategy, it is crucial to consider the entire range of policy options together. Early investments in education are effective, while more expensive later interventions can not compensate for poor early learning. Learning is a dynamic process, and it is most effective when it begins at a young age and continues through adulthood.

Heckman also finds evidence that additional spending on public school quality tends to be inefficient, and that reforms in the administrative structure of education and infusion of incentives and competition are far more likely to be effective.

More broadly, there is evidence of a relationship between education levels and productivity and economic growth. But this is not a simplistic relationship. It does not mean, for example, that forcing those who prefer to leave school early to complete Year 12 will lead them to more skilled jobs and higher wages and will boost productivity and growth. The driving force here is the opportunities for profitable investment and business growth, and extra schooling for students at the lower end of the spectrum will not significantly change this. (This para is from my own work, not Heckman’s.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:32:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Either stay at home and look after your kids or foot the bill for childcare yourself.I'm sick of subsidising other peoples lifestyles and paying to have their kids minded.How can it be beneficial to a 6 week old baby to be dumped in childcare and virtually left there until it goes to school?Then ofcourse you have before and after schoolcare.When do parents get to spend time with their offspring?No wonder so many kids are screwed-up nowadays.I wouldn't mind betting that half don't even know what their parents look like.Why even bother having kids if someone else is going to raise them.
Posted by haygirl, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:33:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haygirl... you aren't footing any bill... If I was to give up work, stay at home and look after my kids, get FTB part A & B and forgoe Child Care Benefit and Rebate, you the taxpayer would be $14000 a year worse off. Do some sums, look at the figures and realise that the taxpayer effectively gets more out of me after tax for my efforts than I do..... not including the future benefit you will get in retirement from my kids working.
Posted by Meelamay, Monday, 29 October 2007 1:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
haygirl,

I'm not sure where your argument leaves dads who can't spend any time with their kids because they have to work 70 hours a week so that their partner can stay home. Do their kids recognise them? What about mothers who work night-shifts while their kids are sleeping so that the family doesn't lose their house - leaving them exhausted and guilty when they return each morning, and spending no time at all with their partners.

Or parents who desperately love their kids but without paid work would be homeless and destitute, and even more dependent on the state than those who are accessing the child care benefit. Or single parents - who increasingly have no choice but to work as the government insists they re-enter the workforce.

If you mind paying for people to work outside the home through CCB, would the kind of money we're talking about be better spent on full-time parenting payments for those who stay at home?

Please note, this is not an attack, I'm just curious to know how you would envisage government supporting people raising their kids, or if governments shouldn't pay anything at all for raising kids.
Posted by seether, Monday, 29 October 2007 1:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy