No, it is interesting:
The Social Market Foundation made a fairly humble suggestion to overcome the birthrate problem, which is – and I’m paraphrasing: “Stop making it so insanely difficult and expensive to have and look after a child.” The National Childbirth Trust calculates the average cost of full-time nursery for a child under two at £263 a week, which even with both parents working is a hefty chunk of the average family budget. If you want to keep your child past that age, or even have another one, for some reason, those costs are only going to accrue.
I know there’s a viable environmental argument for not having children, but that doesn’t stop a lot of people still deeply wanting to have them, and it seems bizarre that we make it so difficult for those who do. The foundation estimates British working parents spend 22% of their income on full-time childcare – twice the average of other western economies;
What interests is that the base point here isn’t even being mentioned. Which is that the costs of such childcare don’t change just because someone else pays it. However we split the bill between parental payments and taxpayer ones the cost of the childcare is still the same.
Which means that our first question should be, well, given this cost, should the childcare be done at all? Or, perhaps, one parent should stop working and take care of their own brats? With two, at £526 a week, probably, yes. This is the societally correct solution for about half the population in fact. Median wages are about £25k a year, or £500 a week. So, for about half the population it is value destroying for them to go to work and pay for childcare. Their time is more highly valued doing the childcare instead.
This being true whoever pays for it.