An extra penny to ensure good quality childcare for all?

According to the Daycare Trust, 53% of people surveyed said they would be willing to pay extra tax, rising to 63% of parents with children under 16.

Adults in the North were most in favour of the idea, with 63% saying they would be prepared to pay an extra penny.

The survey of 1,300 adults said four out of five adults wanted cheap quality care for all children under 12 months.

Stephen Burke, director of the Daycare Trust, a childcare charity, said: "Quality childcare is good for children, good for families and good for society."

VOTE RESULTS Would you pay an extra 1p tax for affordable childcare? Yes 34% No 66% 4367 Votes Cast Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion Vote now closed

A typical nursery place for a child under two costs almost �7,000 a year and there is only one registered childcare place for every four children under eight nationally, the Daycare Trust said.

According to the survey, only a quarter of parents say that childcare has become more affordable over the last three years.

Even when there is help available, not all parents are aware of support with costs.

In London, for example, only 56% of parents were aware there was state help for childcare costs, through tax credits.

Your comments:

Childcare so you can go to work is a work related expense and so should be tax deductible. This happens in Australia for some employees so my childcare for a one-year-old works out at only 2,000 pounds
Mark, Townsville, Australia

I do not see why people should be forced to pay for childcare for other people's children. Having a child should be a considered and well thought out decision, and people should not rely on the government to bail them out. There is already far too much money channelled into helping people who are irresponsible over their reproductive habits. If people cannot afford children, they should not have them, simple as that.
Nigel Manley, London, UK

In reply to Nigel's argument. Should you never pay national insurance contributions because you are fit and healthy and would not need the use of a hospital?! I own a car and never use public transport, so why should I pay towards that. The simple answer is, we all pay for things to make all our lives more convenient and not just what would make our lives easier, selfish I believe the word is.
Andy Cosford, Northampton

In reply to Nigel Manley. It's today's children who will be looking after you when you are old. It's in everybody's best interests to have all children well-educated and well looked after. They are going to be the doctors, teachers, politicians, and decision-makers of the future. If we don't look after them now, how will they look after us in the future?
Rebecca, Colchester, Essex

People should pay extra for childcare, because children are the future of this country. As adults they will contribute towards supporting the country's people.
Halim Ahmad, London

For those that do not wish to contribute to the bringing up of other people's children, perhaps we should contemplate removal of the benefit those children will provide when these childless people retire and still need taxes to keep them cared for. A mere 1p on tax is a tiny price to pay.
K Bramhill, Hove, Sussex

I don't agree with the increase even though I have children at nursery. The question is why is it so expensive? Stephen, Cheadle

Is it so unreasonable to expect people to actually look after their own children? Poor kids are barely born before parents are looking to offload the responsibility on others. I'm with Nigel Manley on this - if you can't afford children don't have them. Perhaps parents would like to contribute an extra penny in tax for me to have a mansion and a med cruiser which I can't currently afford.
Tony G, Felixstowe, UK

I would only be prepared to pay for this if the government were prepared to pay "stay at home" mothers who care for their children full-time a reasonable wage. In this post-feminist world, yes, many mothers want to return to paid work outside the home and should be able to access high quality and reasonably priced childcare. However, if women prefer to stay at home and care full-time for their offspring, they should not be financially penalised for this. Instead, the childcare they provide should be recognised as important work for the UK economy, and allow them to get on with the job without having to rely on a partner to support them. Numerous surveys show that there are a large number of women who would care full-time for their children if they could only "afford" to stay at home rather than return to paid work. The government's drive to increase the number of working mothers and improve childcare for them disregards the rights of full-time carers who happen to be Mums. Or of course, Dads - "stay at home" Dads, whether single parents or with a partner, should also be paid for the job they do.
Dr S, Nottingham, UK

We seem to have an increasing number of people in this country who believe that they can simply reproduce at will ("it's my right") and expect others to pick up the tab. This argument is not the same as paying for education, health and so on for children which of course is for the general good. This is all about parents wishing to have it all their own way - have kids without any personal sacrifice. This penny on tax would be a subsidy towards other adults and their lifestyle choices - it would not be for the greater good. Unacceptable.
Tony, London UK

So, children are now a privilege of the wealthy, on a par with a mansion or a med cruiser? I would live to be a stay at home Mum, but with the current price of houses that just is not an option. Perhaps I should make myself homeless by quitting work and falling behind on my mortgage? Oh sorry, I should not have had any children as I am not rich enough.
JL, Swindon

I feel that children most benefit from time spent with a parent when they are in their early and developing years. Childless adults should not be forced to pay more taxes so that parents can foist their children onto childminders. Having children should be a matter discussed seriously between couples and economy should be one of those issues. If you cannot afford to stay at home with your child and raise it yourself then why are you having one?
Carrie Russell, Bournemouth

I probably won't have any more children, therefore I won't take advantage of any of the benefits that this move would offer. However, I support it, as I know how painfully hard it is to survive with a child in a nursery that costs �125 a week or after-school care of �70 a week. The big issue here is that society has changed dramatically over the last two generations. Fifty years ago extended families would have provided "affordable" childcare. We must to work together as a society to provide this necessity in a new format for a new century.
Vickie, London

In reply to Mr Manley, would he like me to stay at home and be on benefits rather than show my children that hard work and commitment is what is needed to obtain the things in life that we both need and would like? At the time of deciding to have my family I was happily married and in full- time employment, subsequently I become divorced I am only �10 a week better off working than on benefits, and this is with subsidised childcare. We are not all blessed with a crystal ball, and able to see 20 years down the line.
S Marriage, Basildon

Over the years there have been many surveys all asking the same thing - would you pay an extra penny for something. If each idea has been taken up by government, just what would the basic rate of tax be by now.
Roger, London

As a gay man could someone explain what benefit this extra tax would provide for me?
Duncan, Biggleswade, Beds

This is a topic I feel strongly about being a working mum and having the privilege of being able to compare the childcare service in different countries. I will not talk about Germany or Sweden, but Russia, which, you would agree, cannot be put on the same level of economic development as the UK. Nevertheless it offers state run/subsidised nurseries where parents' contributions are minimal and completely free of charge for families with low incomes. Purpose built self-contained buildings host up to 150 children, with every service under one roof including proper kitchens, a paediatrician's office, PE hall, music hall, speech therapist, and so on. I must say this particular nursery takes children from two and a half years old, but then Russian mothers have a legal right to stay at home until their children are three years old and the state actually gives them some money for that. The question is not only how to create affordable, high quality childcare in this country, but to have a radical look at the whole system and drag it into the reality of the 21st century. People need to be given real choices. It seems to me that plenty of lip service is being paid by politicians to getting mothers into work and providing suitable and affordable childcare but little if any progress is being made.
O. Bigault, London, UK

Both my husband I work full-time, our 13 month old daughter is looked after by my sister-in-law to whom we pay �500 a month. I think the government should extend their policy on only paying for registered child minders and day care places, to include family members. Most people who can't afford to give up work to look after their children would prefer someone they know looking after their children instead of complete strangers.
Sandra, Rochester, Kent

I'd rather pay 1p to support parents to stay at home with their children. I'd like to ban childcare for two-parent families. The child needs a parent more than it needs professional care.
Kevin , Cornwall UK

I for one would pay an extra 1p so that children can have an interesting and pleasant introduction to life surrounded by other children. Governments past and present have made this country a very expensive place to live. "If people cannot afford to have children"? This country should be ashamed of itself.
James Baron, Accrington, England

1p doesn't sound a lot in isolation, but when you consider all the other good public causes that need more taxpayers money in order to bring them up to a reasonable standard (i.e. nurses pay, decent schooling), it all starts to add up to an inevitable huge tax hike. Having said that, I have no time for people who suggest that taxpayers should not "subsidise" other people's choices. Taxes are not just there to meet our own individual public service expenses, they are there to provide a decent level of infrastructure for everybody in this country, regardless of their financial standing.
L Wild, London

How about a scheme similar to student loans? Andrew Taylor, Nottingham

I enjoy my work and consider I earn a good salary. However, once my second child is born in the New Year I am not sure I could afford to return to work - my take home pay would barely cover my nursery costs. My son benefits enormously from the social interaction of nursery - an opportunity that should be denied to no child. For those not willing to pay the 1p, why not give tax relief to childcare costs - then cover the deficit (if any) by raising taxes elsewhere.
Sue, UK

I'm sure that our capitalist system would take no time in making this socialist ideal into a horrendous gravy train. Why not just tax parents less in the first place.
Ian Cuthbert-Smythe, Kingston Surrey

I work at the moment, however I would love to have children. The only way I can afford to do this though, is to quit my job, leave my partner and declare myself homeless. At which point I will get benefits which add up to more than my take home pay. It is a tough subject to be reasonable about when there are divides like this. I think there should be clearer definitions between necessities for children and luxuries. Paying for education out of the common fund is sensible, paying for childcare seems to be a luxury, especially when you don't have children yourself, however much you want them.
SB, Hove, UK

This government as usual has it's priorities wrong, with greed as is its highest priority. They force mothers into work, so that they then have to pay for someone else to look after their children. The government gets two lots of tax for this, whereas if most mothers were able to do what they truly wanted, look after their children themselves, the government gets nothing. End result, a society that doesn't value the bond between parent and child, a weak society with no values, no respect and no responsibility. If child care costs �7000 a year, why not let mothers do their own child caring, and pay them for their time? Re-unite families and restore family values before society no long exists. We truly underestimate the values of family life.
Roger C, UK

I don't agree with the increase even though I have children at nursery. The question is why is it so expensive? Considering most staff at the nurseries are paid the minimum wage, and outlay per child, such as food, is low. Maybe it is due to the owners creaming off fat profits. More nurseries are required so that competition increases and prices decrease.
Stephen, Cheadle

My parents decided to have children - but realised and accepted that they could not have the two cars, foreign holidays, and the latest electronic consumer goods and toys as well, unlike the majority of parents today who seem to think that they should not make any sacrifices to have children and expect the rest of us to pay "extra" for them to continue their chosen lifestyle. It is not about the "poor" being prevented from having children, but about people taking responsibility for their own choices. The argument that "other people's children will support me in old age" is spurious as it ignores the fact that if I did not have to pay for other children I would be able to afford to make better provision for my old age (taking responsibility for my own welfare!). I have chosen to not have children - so I see no need to be penalised by those who do either by having to pay more - or cover for those who disappear from work at a drop of a hat when "little Johnny" hurts his knee at the state (tax payer)subsidized nursery.
Chris L, Southampton

Can't say I agree with paying extra tax to allow parents to go to work to earn extra money. we never had this luxury when our daughter was of pre-school age. We had to make savings elsewhere to cover the cost. Since pre-school childcare is for maximum 5 years, how about a scheme similar to student loans - where parent can get a very low interest loan to cover childcare that they can then pay back when their offspring has started full-time school?
Andrew Taylor, Nottingham, UK

We already have an outrageous tax burden which is increasing annually through NI increases, fuel tax rises and many others. The argument that other peoples children will support me in my old age is farcical - it's well documented that the state pension will be of little use in the decades to come and a private pension, funded by myself and my employer, will be required. I don't see how paying for other people's children will help that. As has been stated, perhaps people who wish to have children should cut back expenditure in other areas of their lives. I don't ask for them to buy the sports gear that helps me stay fit and healthy and therefore be less of a burden on the NHS.
MR, Bedford, Bedfordshire

I simply don't understand those who would not contribute to such a scheme. A scheme like this not only helps parents who cannot afford to stay at home, but also helps employers, industry and the economy, by allowing people to keep working even though they have young children. I also agree that stay at home parents should receive financial help. I would love to stay at home with my child full time, but apart from being unable to afford it, also appreciate the need children have for a social life with other children, which is another aspect of what nursery places provide. To me this seems a logical progression of policies aimed to support the family. It is not a matter of "shifting your responsibilities" onto others, it is simply a matter of providing the optimal good for all concerned. Perhaps if paid maternity leave was extended as well, this would also help matters.
Christine, Rochdale

I have been taught all my life that "if you cannot afford it, go without". The society needs discipline, be it on personal spending or having children. If you cannot afford that plasma TV, don't stick it on your credit card. If you cannot afford bringing up a child, don't have it until you can. Don't expect others to pay for them. It makes me angry when people get to stay at home receiving benefits for having 5, 7 or 10 kids. What will their kids grow up to be watching their parents living off other people's tax money? Not a positive influence for sure. My partner and I are saving up now so we can hopefully soon be able to afford children. If people have no discipline and expect the rich to pay for the poor all the time, this country is certainly heading for a decline. As hard-working people become demotivated for working their guts off to pay high taxes to feed the irresponsibles. Brain-drain could happen all over again.
EL, Surrey

I never had any support when I put my 4 children through nursery. It would have been nice at the time, but I don't feel any support for the idea of, effectively, having to pay it all over again now. There is too much "nanny state" here already, so no thanks.
Mark Williams, Grays, UK

There are too many people in the country as it is. We should be proposing policies to actively decrease population not encourage it.
Ivor, Bucks, UK

As a single, childless male on average earnings, I am getting quite sick and tired of seeing people who earn much more than me rake in thousands in family tax credit and the like. there has to be a balance. I'm quite willing to pay income tax to support the poorest members of society, but surely people earning �40,000 a year do not need extra government help in the form of tax credits? Perhaps childcare should be tax deductible as the Australian man suggested, but I'm not in favour of paying even more tax to go to families who earn more than me anyway.
Glen, York, England

Having been looking for childcare to allow my wife to go back to work we are finding that there is a fair amount of "cheap" care we can afford but that the cost of "high quality" care is prohibitive (so we're better of with her staying at home). I do not believe that 1p on tax would actually cover the costs of providing "high quality" care
Mike, Cambridge, UK

I have three young children and (without Granny and Grandpa around) inevitably have childcare difficulties but I don't agree with increasing Tax to magically solve them. It is not about money it is about the level of personal care. The idea smacks of the nanny state (yet again)- suggesting everyone pays and under-threes are somehow cared for by some kind of institution. Parents must take personal responsibility and unfortunately juggle those responsibilities around their other aspirations. There can be no easy tax answer to the practicalities of bringing up children.
John, Cheshire

Something must be done to allow normal working parents to maintain a reasonable standard of living Bruce, London

Whatever else it is, having a baby is an act of consumption, just like buying a DVD player or exceeding the speed limit in a car - personal costs arise. A child should be created if it can be afforded ( you don't need to be rich), and it is irresponsible to expect the state, to pick up the tab. And if you are a lone parent facing financial difficulties - well that is why the Child Support Agency is there - to help make the other parent live up to their responsibilities.
J R Loughney, London, UK

The suggestion that people who have children, but still need to work are irresponsible, is ridiculous. Perhaps Nigel and Tony would like to be on a register of people who won't be supported by our children's income tax when they are old and considered by our kids as a drain on their resources? If we don't have children, we don't have a future, but the current state of society today means that we have to go back to work to support our children whether we like it or not.
Pippa, Northampton UK

I have always worked full-time and at the time of having a child could not afford to go part-time. I then became a single mum and still had to work full-time to pay a mortgage! Why are people complaining about an extra penny? You pay far more than that funding the thousands of people who can't be bothered to get a job so would you prefer that parents simply went on the dole and stayed at home and really sponged off the state and everyone else? This is the 21st century and everyone who works, parents or otherwise, provides some form of service that is utilised by everyone in the country.
Lisa, Wakefield

I have friends who cannot afford to return to work after having their second child, as childcare costs are prohibitive with more than one pre-school child. Most are quite happy that this is their decision to put their family before their career. However, many of the women staying at home are public sector workers: teachers, NHS staff, council workers. If there is no future help with childcare costs, then our society will continue to lose these skilled workers for several years, and some may never return to their previous career. We need to decide whether or not this skill-drain matters to society as a whole, and if so, perhaps we should all help out.
Elizabeth, Surrey, UK

To Tony G and Nigel Manley, I think you have missed the point. With child care costs so high most parents find that they are better off staying at home on benefits than actually getting out into the workplace. In my experience most parents would rather work and contribute to society than be stuck in a this catch 22 situation. Surely an extra 1p works out cheaper than having parents forced to stay at home on benefit.
Steve Carnell, Ipswich

When they are asked, most people are willing to pay an extra 1p for smaller classroom sizes, more bobbies on the beat, shorter hospital waiting lists or more punctual trains. If they were asked if they would pay an extra 1p for each of these, childcare would come low on the list. Perhaps the place to start is to cut wastage by both local and central government to ensure that the money we already pay, which is an awful lot, is spent on providing the quality of service we should expect.
Lawrence, London

I have a young daughter who is in childcare at present. I didn't have the choice about whether to return to work, but decided to go back part time, in order to be able to spend quality time with my daughter for at least part of the week. Yes, it is a struggle. Yes, good quality childcare costs a lot. But there is no way in the world that I would be willing to pay an extra 1p tax to fund this. The money I pay out for childcare has already been taxed once (in the wages paid to myself and my husband) and will be taxed twice again - in the wages paid to the hard working nursery staff, and in the tax paid by the nursery itself. Childcare costs are unfortunately a fact of life if you are a working parent, and we have had to make economies elsewhere to pay for it. But believe me, to see my happy, well-adjusted and sociable little girl playing with her friends and getting covered in sand, mud and paint then bringing her treasures home makes it all worthwhile.
Sian, Bangor, Wales

I would be prepared to pay an extra 1p in tax to fund better childcare. Having my child was a considered and well thought out decision and I was planning on staying at home until she reached school age. However, following the death of her father I found it increasingly difficult to manage and had to return to work full time when she was three years old. I found the cost of childcare tantamount to extortion, and had it not been for the introduction of tax credits I would have had to give up work and go back on income support.
Tryphena Penswick, Preston, UK

Quality child care is essential and benefits us all, not just those of us with children currently needing day care. These kids will grow up to be taxpayers (we hope) and will be one day expected to fund the next generation and also to fund the older generation (us adults now) and their many needs.
Duncan, Milton Keynes

Childcare in nurseries is more like �11,000 per year, so even if you earn a salary of �30,000 there will be nothing left after tax and NI if you have two young children. The current "system" makes it almost impossible for mothers to go back to work, as working for nothing is not very motivating !
Tony, St Albans

My wife runs her own day nursery and a very high percentage of the fees received goes towards paying salaries of the employees, running the nursery (you should see how much the weekly shopping bill actually does cost) and reinvesting in new equipment. Nursery care is expensive but when you factor in the staff-child ratios that have to be maintained to comply with OFSTED requirements, being open from 7am to 6pm for 51 weeks of the year and the overall cost of paying a decent and competitive salary to the employees then there is no such thing as 'creaming off fat profits'. The government does provide funding for the over those 3 years of age but that funding only covers two and half hour sessions per day for 33 weeks of the year so the parent(s) is faced with meeting the difference if wishing to maintain the place for the child.
Jonathan Cook, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex

I am a father of two pre-school age children, working in a reasonably responsible job on a reasonable wage in London. Prior to having our children, my wife worked full-time, also in a responsible job. We now find that the costs of childcare in London, and I dare say across the rest of the country, are simply prohibitive to allow my wife to continue working, even on a part-time basis. Whilst I do not agree with the proposal, something must be done to allow normal working parents to maintain a reasonable standard of living for both themselves and their off-spring, after all we live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. It would certainly be beneficial if childcare was treated as a tax deductible expense, but employers should also be taken to account for the comparatively low rates of pay offered to women, especially in part-time positions. Those people that say that parents should not have children if they cannot afford them do not understand that having children is not a merely economic decision but is the natural progression of a loving relationship, or the scale of the costs involved.
Bruce, London

I hope I will be allowed to add to my previous comment given the retort from Pippa: (1) I do not expect anyone to support me in my old age and that is precisely why I curtail my current expenditure in order to provide for myself and my family in future - which is the opposite of some of you who want to have a child whilst maintaining the same standard of living by raising others' taxes (2) Why do you assume that people objecting to this idea are childless?
Tony, London, UK