To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

32 percent - not sure I totally agree there. I paid for 3 lots of pre school care (briefly) but was paying for 2 lots for years and years because of te way my kids were spaced out and salso because where I live, the kids didn't start school till January rather than in September (all summer born). I also got minimal maternity leave. The cost (and the availability) pf summer care was still an issue for us while we needed it. The cost was proportionately much higher than the full time care had been, and the availability was poor. Yes, we were paying less per year but it was still difficult to find organise and then pay for (and I was a high earner). Where there are subsidies there will be increased provision (well - you'd think) which might make it easier even for those who don't qualify for subsidy to access it.

School holiday care subsidies would be great, but it pales into insignificance beside the cost of pre-school care.

The only parents I've ever known complain about the cost of summer holiday care is those who didn't work until their children were all in school. Anyone who's paid for pre-school care breathes a huge sigh of relief when the kids start school and it's only before/after school and holiday care that's needed.

They means test CB so it isn't impossible and again not all pay tax.Many will be costing the state more now they're working.Also many would like their family to have a period with a sahp as they feel it would benefit their children.Not all parents have a burning desire to have 2x wp during their dc's entire childhood.

I hope we see some measures to facilitate the above too.

Ivy you don't seem to understand that this is not just about helping WOHP out- its about increasing revenue ,reducing the national debt and assisting those who would love to WOH to have a chance to do so.
Keeping those already trained and qualified in work, that they want to do.
It gives more women choice- if they want to SAH in spite of this they will.

littlebook we already have means testing for childcare so we wouldn't need a hugely expensive new system, we would just need to increase the thresholds so that more families can benefit.

I agree funding for wraparound care in schools should also be increased but I think it's the pre school years which are the most crippling in terms of cost. Enabling women to work during the pre school years means that they are more likely to stay in their career and maintain their earning potential which again makes them more likely to be able to fund childcare during the school years.

IB The problem with means testing is that it is expensive, difficult and often unfair which is why the winter fuel allowance and bus passes for OAPs are also for all.
Again, people working means people paying taxes which means the NHS get money too. I am no economist but this is not rocket science.

Sorry disagreeing with you is not the green eyed monster.I will benefit and can see huge amount of negatives.

Wasting money in austerity is madness and some of this is a waste. Wealthy families don't need it or free school meals. Frankly I'd rather they put any surplus cash they into upping the threshold for fsm so more hungry kids in secondary can benefit or giving those less well off more help with childcare of pump it into the NHS.Enabling cleaners and holidays for the wealthy is sheer madness.

That said I agree whole heartedly with sahp getting 15 hours in pre school education but they don't need more than the 30 unless they're students or carers.

6 weeks per year that is.

Personally I would rather the government funded up to 6 weeks of 30h a week childcare in the school holidays for children in reception to Y8 for working households to close the gap between the school holidays and holiday allowance in a job.

My children are older than this so I wouldn't personally benefit but I think as a society it would being the most benefit to both children and parents.

Me too. Great post. Sums it all up perfectly!

Top post, 32% !!

And considering it costs the state (ie all of us) around £150,000 (or something around that) for every child born, we're all still contributing to raising our children.

Agree 32percentcharged

I just find it a tad depressing that when women have been campaigning for years for better access to childcare provision to enable them fo work, the moment govt policy actually responds to that, the whiners start protesting that it's 'not fair', which usually just means it's something they personally won't benefit from. It won't affect them adversely, they can just ignore it and not use it if they choose- but no, they'd rather froth with the green eyed monster than see someone else benefit from a policy which benefits the economy.

And I speak as someone who won't benefit either- my kids are long past childcare, so we had to pay all of ours ourselves. Neither did we benefit from all the other policies which make life better these days, such as year long maternity leave and paternity leave. But I don't begrudge other people getting those.

Very depressing to see people who can't or won't see beyond their own situation, and who don't want policies which will strengthen the economy because, shock horror, they might make life a teensy bit easier for working families

Tanith - people are more likely to afford savings and a pension if they are in employment. Investment in childcare increases people in employment.

Don't be so ridiculous most of us on this thread are women and working.

Thelittlebooktroll- yeap I agree, the childcare issue always raises hackles. Sadly I suspect to some degree it's a hangover of the patriarchal society... Widening access to childcare means widening access to the workforce, which heaven forbid, means more women might want a slice of the action

HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO AFFORD SAVINGS AND A PENSION WHEN I AM EXPECTED TO SUBSIDISE YOUR FREE CHILDCARE SO YOU CAN PAY FOR A CLEANER?!

Your comment, Troll, is right up there with "Let them eat cake!"

Why won't the cleaner be paying tax?
I pay my cleaner £12 per hour, the going rate. She only does 3 hours a week for me, but works a full week with private customers. Why wouldn't she pay tax?

Same as free school meals and wfa for all do.

It's wasting money on those who clearly don't need it.

I also agree with 32percent here. it seems of all the things this country spends money on, nothing makes people feelthan childcare. Then the government is spending THEIR money and God forbid should these parents who get some assistance with their astronomical childcare cost also have a cleaner or go on a couple of nice holidays because this is of course paid for by the tax payers

The point you are now making IB relates to minimum wage and means testing.

Do you still not understand that the state is not funding anyone's cleaner?

But a cleaner won't be paying tax and will have the meagre salary you're paying topped up by the state.

There is no need to help families already perfectly capable of paying their own childcare in the same way there is no need for wfa for rich pensioners. Have a cleaner but frankly see no reason why the state should fund it.

Helping families who need it yes,wasting money on those who don't no.