I recently listened to a radio program, during which a mother proudly described how she had enrolled her daughter in a counselling program, because her daughter wasn’t adjusting well to being left in daycare.

capitalism and humans don't mix well, and it's easy to imagine better ways of running human society.

but one measure of 'better' is 'victorious' and capitalism seems to be ascendant everywhere, so prepare yourselves to slide into some mixture of 'brave new world', if we're lucky, and '1984', if we're not.

children will just have to adapt to being economic units, like the rest of us. fortunately, this is just a transition period. genetic engineering and psychological conditioning will soon make the integration process smooth and irresistable.

keep your eyes down, answer in an obsequious manner when spoken to, and offer a fervent "yes, sir/madam!" to all instructions. survival is possible, and may even seem worthwhile

Seems to me the political message does not gel. Both parties are claiming to be family friendly but they are spending billions on child care when parents actually should be doing that.

Taxpayer funding of child care does one thing. It increases the cost of child care. Plain and simple. Have a look at the rates of government funding and the relevant rises in child care costs. We might as well just give the money directly to the child care companies as they just eat it up.

As to the quality of child care, how many of you have actually watched what goes on inside these places during the work day? Do you seriously think your child is getting anything like the care you can give as a parent?

Society should be concerned when governments are paying parents to leave their children. They should be paying them to stay at home and look after them if anything.

It really reflects the pressure workers have been under for decades.

My kids were born in the 70's. I was on a low wage but my ex wife stayed at home to look after them. When they went to school she worked part time. How much subsidy was there from taxpayer's? NIL. As it should be. My kids, my costs. Why should anyone else have supported me?

If this money was used for aged care, hospitals, education and all the more essential services we would have a far better society.

How many of you know mothers who don't work that put their kids in taxpayer funded child care? I know 6 such mothers. And I, for one, am sick of paying for their baby sitters. Aren't you?

Once upon a time, and not so long ago, most child care arrangements were done via various forms of cooperative community based efforts.
They were essentially friendly and very child oriented in there operations---the parents had a real say in what happened.

Then along came John and Jeff inspired by the IPA and the CIS (JB's home base) and most if not all the community based centres were forced to close under the new rules of the market. All the money was creamed off into private hands, notably one savvy ABC entrepreneur, and the bottom line became the operating rule.

Welcome to the brave new brutopian world where the invisible hand of the "market" rules.

I agree. I'm a single person, and I'm sick of rich women
telling me that I need to fund their childcare experiments.
Plus, socialistic policies have a sad history. Lets fact it,
some of these broads love throwing their babies in childcare,
and asking the taxpayer to foot the bill. I'm no fool.

Hey RobbyH, I was born in the 70s like your kids, and I remember that my mum certainly did get some regular family payments from what subsequently became the Family Assistance Office. Looks like you missed out!

This sort of article regularly pops up from the CIS. I've yet to hear them use the phrase "the public good".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not all childcare is centre-based. Family daycare is a great option, with carers limited to 5 kids under schoolage (plus two older ones can be added after school). This naturally limits what they are able to earn. I dont begrudge a cent of what I pay my carer, and I appreciate the financial assistance from all taxpayers to do so. I dont have a choice in whether to work or not, and as much as I hate leaving my daughter at daycare, she thrives on it, with lots of interaction and activity that I wouldnt be able to offer her otherwise.

All that said, we do have an ABC centre in this town, and if I had no other option, I would quit work, sell the house and live in a caravan before I sent her there.

I'm very sorry that you people have got yourselves into a financial situation where you both need to work but i do not believe anyone else should foot the bill.Govt or otherwise.If you don't work you still get child endowment or whatever they call it now.If you can't afford to have kids and look after them,you shouldn't have had them.What about all the women on benefits who don't work.They still get subsidised childcare.Another case of people putting out their hands and thinking we all should pay for their life choices.We have become a nation of people who don't accept our own responsibilities and expect handouts all the time.

To listen to the Educationalists arguments regarding day care, its incredible how the world has produced so many scientists, engineers, inventors, artists, musicians etc etc before the introduction of day care. But then, day care provides more education workers with jobs and the access to young minds to perpetuate their own beliefs and values.
I strongly support the suggestion that parents should be responsible for their own children, or don't have them. The prevailing attitude today is that the State (other taxpayers) will provide a Baby Bonus (Plasma Grant), child benefit payments, day care and school fees etc etc which all subsidises parents income so they can buy a bigger house or an investment property or holidays abroad etc etc.
Gross over-population is the biggest problem facing Australia and the withdrawal of these financial incentives would very quickly at least stabilise or even reduce the population. This in turn would reduce overcrowding on transport, roads, waiting lists in hospitals and the use of prime land for housing, schools and more hospitals etc.

And whats the point in saving water when one more mouth in the State uses the water savings of ten thrifty people.

Haygirl, you have missed the point another poster made about the costs to the community of child endowment vs childcare subsidies. To make a point, with two kids in care and working full time, the govt would collect about $17,000 a year from me in tax, and subidise my childcare to the tune of about $4420 a year in CCB, and around $1794 in CCR ($6214 all up). Thats still a net contribution that I make of about $10786. If I were to stop work, I wouldnt get any childcare subsidies (as I wouldnt use it), but I would get family tax benefit, to the tune of about $8920 for part A and $3260 for part B, taking a total of $12180 OUT of the tax system, without putting anything back. Isnt it pretty simple to see how the tax-payer overall is better off? Isnt it better for the community overall if I work, and still make a net contribution to the system?

Its sad, but I actually calculated a whileback that if I stopped work, and sold the house, and rented instead (and thus qualified for rent assistance), thanks to Centrelink I would have as much disposable income as I do now, working my butt off and trying to give my kids a balanced life. But at the end of the day, I think I set a better long-term example to my kids by being a productive person, than bludging off welfare. The least the community in general can do, is thank me for my choice, rather than jump down my neck about costing the taxpayer.