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

Morethan given that you have stated several times that you claim benefits people like me are paying for you to swan around 'enjoying life'.

I do disagree that children will automatically follow the example their parents set.

I'm a SAHM. My mum wasn't. Hers wasn't.

Narv

I have 2 grown up sons who both have several jobs and whose gf/ future wives also work. Both girls have stated that they would like to continue to work when they have dc, but have said prefer p/t working around their dh jobs. Neither of my sons think it is a woman's job to sah and I don't see how if you have a parent at home this makes any difference, tbh. My dd is only 11 and has mapped her life out and nowhere does it include being wifey chained to the sink.

Could I ask how my attitude is appalling? I don't need a reason to not work for an employer, I don't want to and nor do I have the time right now. I'm too busy enjoying a life which is too short already.

Surely the argument here isn't whether mothers working is best for the kids, as that is debatable and not what the govt are interested in. The issue is whether it will benefit the economy on a wider scale. The govt believe it will,and it will free up money for thousands who will go on to spend it in the economy...another benefit. So while it won't benefit me anyway as I don't work at the moment as kids are small, and by the time it kicks in they will be at school, I still think it will be a good thing overall.

Ok. It's just I presumed (perhaps erroneously) that the cut off would be expected at the cb cut off. Which would effect women like me.

FWIW, I won't directly benefit in any case. My children will all be at school. I see the benefit for a fairer society though. Who would have thought, something from the Tories I actually agree with.

No idea Tilder I'm sure somebody better qualified would be best to suggest an actual cut off or tapering off. Can't see it being increased more by vast amounts anytime soon unless they do or increase tax or make bigger cuts elsewhere.

We shall see.

It's particularly important for the mothers of sons to work otherwise we will have yet another generation of men who think that women should be barefoot in the kitchen or that women can never and should never aspire to do jobs of consequence.

I think the PP who highlighted the fact that certain people are worried about losing their excuse for not working is correct. I disagree 100% with Morethan's applling attitude but at least she is honest.

Putting aside the economic arguments what about the effects this will have on child poverty ?
The working poor will have more money and more opportunities
that can only be a good thing.
The "oh they are all sooo rich and undeserving" doesn't quite add up when in the UK 1 in 4 children lives in poverty.

www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures.

IB- We could 'afford' childcare, but it took the equivalent of all my income for several years, meaning (ironically) that although we had a roof over our heads and food on the table, had no spare money to plough back into the economy through spending on anything else. And like I said, loads of people in our situation STOP working, because they don't believe it's worth it when it takes all one income.

This policy will widen access to work for thousands of families. It will be economically beneficial. You are just repeating your mantra that it's 'wasting money' because you personally don't want to make use of the provision.

So ivy I will ask again. Who exactly is deserving of the money?

For 4 years my take home (including the government support) was £150. Without support, I would have been in the red. Would I qualify?

Rubbish.You don't gave to be an economist to see that wasting money on those that can and do afford childcare is not necessarily a good thing.Just the same as wasting money on those that don't need fsm or wfa isn't the most prudent idea.That money will have to come from somewhere.

If we want the Scaninadian model we will have to pay a lot more in tax particularly if we want decent schools,NHS etc.

Considering the gov want to reduce taxes I don't see that happening any time soon.

stitch for me, that is exactly the case. I pay more in tax each year than I receive in help. I will continue to pay that tax when I no longer need the support.

This is about enabling choice for everyone. Women have been campaigning for over a generation for improved access to affordable, quality childcare. This is (hopefully) a step in that direction.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail.

I think the op is completely unreasonable. The menopause...

And the pp who said only a sahp thinks 30 hrs is full-time. Both my sons attended 8-6 5 days a week!

You have made a choice to stay at home. Most of us have elderly parents. I fail to see how you think having 30 hrs is your right when you have chosen not to work

What stamping of feet ???
It wont benefit me , Im not invested in this in a personal way at all !

I don't think you understand how the economy works Ivy or more likely don't want to, if it doesn't fit your agenda.

Extra money for childcare I mean?

Are people saying that the extra money isn't a problem even in times of austerity because it effectively pays for itself? I'm really not an economist.

How do you judge who needs it?
Anyone with kids who works needs childcare of some sort and we have the most expensive childcare in europe. This seems like a move towards a more Scandinavian style, universal childcare which is proven to give better outcomes for women and children.
You want to stay st home do so but know that you won't be able to use childcare costs as a reason for that. For families that want or need to work this is a good thing.

Out of curiosity ivy, who do think needs help with childcare?

Many of us who did keep our careers going do have a choice, had a decent break with maternity leaves and have a good work life balance
Ivy you are arguing that it should be harder for WOHM ,of which you say you are one !?

I'm not.I'm pissed with people who don't need it getting it who in turn stop those that do getting what they actually need.

This stamping of feet and sense of entitlement is ridiculous in a time of austerity and frankly long term I don't think it's feasible unless there are big cuts elsewhere.

Thelittlebooktroll- it's interesting that the economic argument is being completely ignored isn't it?!
The fact that increased access to work - for those who want it is cost effective, because it creates a stronger economy, is being completely ignored by a small minority simply because they don't want to use the childcare.

It reminds me of the argument about CB where people gripe about households with two workers which still get it because they have no one on HR tax ... The strident minority harp on about how unfair it is, even though it's been widely documented that the changes to CB have been made in the most cost effective way. Clearly some people would rather the govt actually wasted money on means testing certain benefits in a less cost effective way. Why let sound economics stand in the way of your own personal resentment?!

Isn't there a saying about 'dog in the manger' attitude, when you don't qualify for something yourself, or don't want it yourself, but just can't bear to see other people getting it?

Didn't think I was being superior ivy. I was a single mum so it was important to me to show my ds that you work for what you get. I did have a good balance and still do. I did what was right for my family. If staying at home is right for your family do it and be confident in your choice. But don't get pissed that people who need it are getting help with childcare.

If you means test it in the same way as child benefit, you are effectively telling a lot of people (me included) that one of you working is enough.

We don't get cb because dh earns over the threshold, fine. Please don't now make my career financially non viable for the same reason.

Stitch which the vast maj of kids have.

I don't know anybody who was a sahp at some point not bringing in money.

Setting a good example- ha,ha the vast maj of mums work at various points of the lives of their DC,working isn't ground breaking news.Not taking a break is hardly something to feel superior about. I can think of far more things to set a good example about. Having a life balance that makes you and your family happy being one.

It may be an economic strategy but countless gives have had strategies for all sorts of things.Doesn't make them necessarily work or right.