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

oh, then i agree with you then mrsjay

I haven';t actually answered the OP, i think YABU but i think the money should be spent differently.

Why is it sacrificing family life to return to work as a mother? Unless you have a job of 70/80 hours a week there is still plenty of time for family life and work.

Strange how all the husbands funding a non working parent aren't accused of being selfish and sacrificing family time as there wage is needed to allow the other the choice of not working.

Yes some working parents won't pay tax but they may in future as they increase hours or get a promotion etc. Stayig in work makes it much easier to move jobs or climb higher compared to taking years out of the workplace. Why then should there be help to get back in when the active choice was made to stop work. Or course most will have to start over again in the workplace but that's obvious from the moment you leave. Many never had a job in the first place to return to so many didn't sacrifce a salary to start with.

Daft idea to pay people to look after their own children, it's just what you do as a parent. What benefit would it have to society, none. It wouldn't make anybody a better parent.

theoriginallem I was just replying to a pp who said that kids with an extra 15 hrs would be at an advantage to kids who got 15 hrs nursery is amazing for preschoolers id have it compulsary for all 3yr old but it is optional nobody has to send their dc if they dont want iyswim

little when both dc's were at nursery I received around £10k of working childcare tax credits a year. I didn't even earn £10k let alone pay much / any tax. just because people work doesn't mean they are contributing. but I'm a LP so the system is set up so I have to work even though it costs the country more.

I suspect this new 30 hrs will be used to force more lp's back to work. never kind their mental & physical health and available support, just as long as they're in a job .

headinmyhands I didn't bother replying originally because 1. You called my comment stupid, 2. You didn't seem to realise it was in response to a whole load of other comments So you missed my point.

I said what I said about needing free childcare in response to all the comments about SAHP not needing childcare. I'm sure there are wOHP couples struggling after paying childcare as well as those who aren't. The bigger point I was making is that those who are saying it's totally appropriate to be means tested on the basis of hours worked seem to disagree about it being means tested on income.
You also seemed to miss the bit where I said I agree with extra support for low income families.

When I read threads like this, I start to see why some people think the state should stay out of everything personal because it is almost impossible to get it right. Lowest ever taxes and everything paid for by individuals. Perhaps nobody would need free childcare if they only paid tax at 10%

Littlemonsters - our ooh school club is £14 per day, so a mum on minimum wage would be spending potentially a third of her wages on childcare for one child. Whilst i agree that the cost of holiday childcare is a part of the household finances it is ridiculously expensive - £150 a week for the ones advertised at ours DD's school, maybe a child minder would be cheaper? Although these tend to only run during school hours so then there is no after school provision - argggghhhhhhhhhh. (i live in south east but not london - thank God)

I honestly don't know how people on an average wage, let alone minimum wage, cope. I currently help my DP out on site (hes a builder) during school hours (getting quite good at this building malarky! ) and then have an early morning/evening cleaning job. This fits in wiht the family - although i am a biochemist "by trade" i couldnt find work that fitted around my family and i don't have family back up anymore. I don't work with DP during the holidays. I think once i get a job then DP will hopefully be able to work around the holidays so we will actually have it easier than many families. With DD1 my parents were fit enough to be able to take care of her and i worked long hours, plus went to university - If i am absolutely honest my relationship with DD1 suffered for it.

Little monsters can i also pick up on your last comment there, whilst i wholeheartedly agree with you that women absolutely should follow careers, i don't actually think being forced to sacrifice family life just to stay on the career ladder is the right way to go. That is probably the reason why many SAHP end up going back to work before they would have liked to. What about investing in getting women who have had career breaks back into useful and fulfilling careers - realistically i know things move on, i was in that sort of field but have found it impossible to step back on the career lasdder. There are schemes available but they are as rare as rocking horse shit and only really there for people who were high flyers in the first place. Sorry, i don't mean to sound like im constantly disagreeing with you, just that you raise some good points that i can see the other side of.

littlemonsters some wahps dont contribute in taxes either due to not earning enough but they still use services and claim ctc and help with childcare. It costs us more as a society to enable some people to work than what it would cost to support them as a SAHP,

little

And anyone else that knows

Aren't the government talking about taking low paid minimum wage earners out of tax completely

Wouldn't that mean that those people are no longer contributing to any of the stuff you mentioned?

For what it's worth I think that 15 hours Free education is fine, sahm parents do not need 30hours free childcare (and most I know wouldn't take it)

But I do share the OPs concern, there is a poster on here who always says that words are important...I don't see it as too much stretch of the imagination for the government to "rename" the 15 hours education and make it childcare. From then it's only a hop skip and a jump away from taking it away from non working parents as "why do they need free childcare"

my children are through this stage...they are well old!!

I've not read the whole thread because I'm at the dentist! But I think this whole proposal is bollocks. Am particularly bewildered about why only parents of three and four year olds deserve help with childcare costs.

And I know lots of women for whom this would make all the difference in terms of getting back to work while their skills are still current. Waiting til kids are at school can mean skills are all out of date and getting back to work is even harder.

I worked after Ds1 was born and he attended a nursery for 3 days a week, then I became a SAHM but we still paid for him to go to a nursery 1 day a week to socialise him with other children.

When he was 3 we withdrew him from the paid nursery and he qualified for the 15 hours in a preschool attached to a primary school.

When I had Ds2 I was (and still am) a SAHM. I paid for him to go to a playgroup for 2 hours when he was 2 because I wanted him interacting with other children and not just the usual people we saw at soft play/meeting up with other SAHMs and their children.

When he was 3 he had the 15 hours free in a preschool. I believe the 15 hours educational setting benefited both my sons.

I do not believe any SAHM requires the additional 15 hours "childcare" element. If you want it, then you should pay for it.

I'm not trying to get into sahm v wohm divide either. I have seen that having a sahm is beneficial to many kids (not always) but it's not an option for me.

I don't need the extra hours as such myself, and would accept it if I fell wrong side of means cut off. Just debating what the point of the additional hours is.

Parents are not treated equally. When both parents work they will be given free childcare and get to keep all their salary. Whereas when one parent stays at home for a while to look after their children they sacrifice their whole salary. I think the government should either give a certain amount of money to the care of each child that can be used towards childcare or towards caring for them yourself or give nothing to anybody. If people have children they should expect to either look after them or have to pay for someone else to. It is unfair that couples who don't look after their children themselves will get their childcare paid for and couples with a SAHP get nothing towards their care even though they are likely to be loving on less money with only one salary.

I would give every child say £200 (depending on household income) towards their care a month. Use it how you like. Nobody works for free. Nobody does it to be a great person. People do it for money.

Tarka are you deliberately ignoring my questions to you? You made a MASSIVE statement about managing fees and I would really like to hear your reasons for you belief. I have stated my case how managing is damaging, I would like to hear yours.

Little hoards of working parents don't contribute anything.

Many don't pay tax and others pay so little it most certainly doesn't cover what they cost the state.

Yy to questioning the funding of childcare for wealthier families who don't need the help. Just why?

And seriously you have to be a mega high earner not to worry about childcare costs. They turn a good salary into hardly anything and make low ones impossible. Many people are paying the equivalent of a mortgage in childcare costs. But then you all know that.

Littlemonsters I expect this free provision will push quite a few working families into the no net-contribution category too especially if they have several children close in age,

I know it isn't a benefit. I am using benefit in the sense of good thing rather than the bashing sense.

AO....very true!

The thing is, nursery isnt just childcare, it is pre-school. A child that doesnt attend will begin school lacking the socialisation into a classroom setting, as well as some levels of early education. A parent can make up some of the latter, but not the former. They then begin school appearing to have learning or behavioural issues, as the goal posts get shifted to reflect the training the kids in daycare/nursery have received. Happened to my son (in the US).

Years ago, part-time nursery was deemed desireable from a long term education view. Working parents needing more childcare doesnt change the long term educational needs of the children of at home parents.

A lot of working parents (and really it is mothers) are stretched. Financially as well as practically. It can be tough hanging in there when childcare costs are so high. And here is some sort of break for them. Why would anyone mind? So, it doesn't benefit you personally. Neither do lots of benefits probably. We can't have everything and nor should we want to.

Won't the 30 hours be school hours and term time? If that's the short working day and school holiday problems will still be there for parents of three year olds.