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

Yes separate taxation which benefits the wohp and penalises one with a sah. Incidently I only mentioned salary in response to a much earlier post where it was claimed that high earners don't necessarily work harder than lower earners. In the professions that I have worked it the high earners defin work harder.

Well it is my reality 32cent. I was just referring to my personal experience but good to know it is far from ideal.

and the 30 hours will be too late for me as dd will be at school. Although when we met our salaries had less of a differential.
Also it stands to reason that someone doing an admin role is going to have less stress than someone responsible for a team of 30 and with a long commute but also accept that some other low paid roles have their own types of stress.

tobysmum

Most women I know who work are p/t and don't pay tax.
the vacancies advertised are mostly p/t as well, or 3/4 very few full time jobs that would be enough to pay tax.
Besides, I think most returning to work prefer this anyway.

Maybe the govt needs to leave self funding sah alone and contrentrate on getting families where no one works into work.

30percent great post absolutely.

My youngest goes to school in 2016 so this won't benefit me or my family. I still think its a good thing.

If more parents work then there will be more tax receipts. That is how it will be paid for.

About time this happened- for the past few years I've scrimped and saved every single penny so I can send my child to nursery to allow me to go to work. During which time, I've seen many people I know who do not work get free childcare so they can sit on their arse in peace. Before anyone starts about children being deprived etc, what a patronising and condescending attitude to those on benefits.

In most of the newspaper coverage, it says the extra hours will be funded by a reduction on pension tax relief.

back

Your post of 11:12 today makes you sound exactly like a politician

Unless you are one...in which case it's not quite so funny

Sorry that's a bit garbled. I mean it specifically says it replaces it but is more narrowly defined. Also taking it away from most deprived children.

Everything I've read suggests this is aimed at families where both parents are working. I think they'll take away the 15 hours from children who have a parent at home.

How else are they going to pay for it? There's not enough money as it is to fund the 15 hours.

Am sure it would be speculation. But this is a massively important issue for a lot of people and information on what and how people would like this to work may, in an idealistic world, be a way of putting our view forward to those who will form the policy.

I don't see any reason not to start a thread if you want, but I doubt there would be anything more than speculation on it since none of us know the details yet

I would much rather the debate on the possibility of 30 free hours of childcare focused on issues such as the availability if said free childcare. The quality of that free childcare. The viability of those free hours give the level of government funding.

I would rather they offered 25 hours of properly funded childcare than 30 hours if underfunded childcare.

Instead we seem to be talking about cleaning, who does it, if the children help

If I started a new thread about availability, quality and funding of the free hours, would it be a taat?

I've been a SAHM forever and there is no way on this earth I'd want my youngest in childcare 30 hrs a week while I was at home. Sahms clearly don't require this. But I'd be very upset if someone suggested my children won't get the 15hrs pre school education anymore, I doubt this will happen as its for education and should not be linked to the parents employment status. I'm looking forward to my one full day and a couple of mornings nursery next year. Emily starts school in 2017 so this wouldn't benefit me anyway.

Saying you have a cleaner is like waving a red cloth on this thread.

Tanith I am sorry I do t understand your point. If you are a childminder surely you want there to be a demand for your services?

I am not a higher rate tax payer and nor is DH but I agree with the point previous poster is making that higher rate tax payers are always getting penalised. You don't have to earn an awful lot in London before you are higher rate and it also depends how many children you have. Should higher rate tax payers only be able to afford one child as that's all they can afford in childcare whilst others get 3 children into childcare as they are qualifying for more free hours? How would this work if means tested?

I think it's totally up to the individual whether to mop the floor with or without their children, or indeed whether to mop it at all

The debate hasn't really come down to cleaning has it?

If you're a SAHP Charis, presumably you do the cleaning while your child is asleep or at nursery/school so I can't see what difference it makes.

Even better if you can mop the floor together. Historically you know, parents didn't play with their children hardly at all. Children played with each other. Poor people had to work and the rich or aspirational had governesses to educate & supervise.

If you are a working parent, spending the time you do have with your children instead of mopping the floor is even more important, surely?

I disagree, I think it is an extremely bad example for children.

Tilder- the thread hasn't pissed me off, but I do agree with you on one thing: I too find it depressing that after women have said for years and years that the main barrier to work is high childcare costs, the moment there's a whiff of help, people start piling in complaining about it!

It smacks to me of two things: insecurity among some people about their own choices; they feel that any proposed changes are somehow a threat to them.

And the second thing, which is a more unpleasant attitude imo is that some people have an inbuilt selfishness and resentment which means they don't like other people getting something which they themselves havent benefited from.
I'd just ask this question: how do you think attitudes and policies would ever move forward if we all just resented policies just because they don't benefit us individually?
Like other women of my age, I lived through the era when we had 12 weeks Maternity leave followed by 4 years of paying full childcare costs all year round until our children started school and the bills dropped a bit. Our husbands were the ones who had one day off work for the birth of their children because paternity leave didn't exist.

Do I think parents shouldn't have help now, just because I didn't qualify for it? No, because actually I want a society where there are greater opportunities and choices, and where frankly it isn't such a bloody hard grind and financial drain as it was back in the day.

It's really quite depressing to see some posts where people just seethe with resentment about a policy which won't affect them because they don't even want or need 30 hours free childcare

I'm not sure why having a cleaner is being seen on this thread as being something that is an unnecessary luxury being paid for by taxpayers. If you are a working parent, spending the time you do have with your children instead of mopping the floor is even more important, surely?

Yes, tilder.

I believe that we should have free at the point of delivery 24/7 childcare for everyone who wants it (like the nhs).

It's not about working/not working/deserving/undeserving.

And yy to everything tilder has said.