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

Biased. She's experiencing bias. Doesn't work. Husband on £60k and she's discriminated against. One of these days, I expect to hear Kate Middleton complain she's hard done by.

If you're at home why do you need free childcare?

Jesus, I've heard it all now. How someone with a household income of £60k can find anything financial to moan about is beyond me. But you look around and see someone getting something you aren't getting and suddenly you're the victim. It's disgusting. That's what it is.

Nerv No, I wasn't referring to you.

During austerity any lifestyle choice should be funded yourself, this is what is happening to everyone, tax credits, UC, bedroom tax etc. It is my belief that whilst cuts are being made to those who don't have a choice whether to work or not, such as disabled and their carers that we shouldn't fund childcare for those who choose to work when they don't have to. If you choose to do it to keep career going or just because you don't fancy being a sahp then you should fund it yourself.
So yes whilst I support childcare for those who need to work to make ends meet, I think it should be means tested and not to subsidise luxuries.
If you can manage on one wage and you both want to work well both go p/t and save other taxpayers paying your childcare.

7amliein, you could always go out to work. Then you can have your own tax code just like the couple and if your children are the right ages the new childcare assistance or vouchers. Little point in moaninh about those two things when neither apply to a non worker. It's not biased anymore than not claiming a uniform tax rebate as you don't need to wear one.

Comparing a households like that is comparing apples with oranges.
If your friends were in the same position as you- ie: one parent working and one SAHP, then they would have £30k- half your income!
If you want to make a comparison, then why not start on a level playing field: ie your friends having one partner earning the £60k that one earner in your household earns and then the other earning on top.

Or to put it another way- why don't you (or your partner, it's not clear which of you earns) drop your earnings to £30k and then the other can top up if they want!

Just ridiculous that whenever this argument arises, people choose to compare a single earner on £60k with two earners. The right to be taxed as individuals was hard fought. And very few people are going to get the violins out for people who don't work, have a partner on £60k and are complaining that two earners along the street working a full week for half the amount each, get child benefit.

You don't need childcare if you are a sham, surely?

The whole system is biased against the sahp. In our house there is one income just over £60k, meaning we get no child benefit - while friends on £30k each get full whack. Taking into account that they are both also basic rate taxpayers their total income is way way higher than ours. I'm sure there is also some sort of tax code trade off that can be used - again this excludes the single high income family. Then here comes the childcare exclusion. Pretty poor.

I think you have nailed it tbh NARV

Why begrudge working parents help with childcare costs?

I am slightly aggrieved that I will soon have just finished 8 years of expensive childcare and this would have greatly helped but hey ho. At least others are getting help to make going back to work worthwhile financially.

Morethan it's not clear who you are suggesting takes out of the 'pot' but if it was me - think again love. I'm very happy that my humungous taxes go to provide support for those who need it. I voted to increase my taxes in the last election because I think tax rises are needed. I am not at all happy to pay for benefits or tax credits or, well, anything really, for people who call themselves SAHPs when actually their kids are either grown up or at school and who don't work because they can't be arsed. Most unemployed people don't fall into that category but some do.

Morethan, I don't pay for childcare nor do I get it for free so it doesn't affect me either way so how am I hypocritical?

Hypocritical is not wanting workers to have subsidised childcare whilst claiming tax credits for years on end as you don't want to work. At least those workers are contributing and will continue to do so.

People who work so pay for themselves through the taxes they pay.

*principle....

Little

I don't, on the contrary I am pointing out to you that unless you pay for all of these things yourself you too are receiving benefits. i find you hypocritical tbh.

Narv

Yes, the axe. A poster who believes that disabled people should lose money by way of cuts. Yet, I imagine takes just as much out of the pot herself.

I'm not an economist either, but I do also have some background in economics.

tbh, I think it's scaremongering to speculate that the rules will shift towards free hours only for those with 2 working parents. If it were up to me then the free hours would only be from the September after they turn 3yo making equal free hours regardless of when child's birthday was. Some kind of incentive to subsidise working parents is fine by me in principal (I was a bored witless SAHM for 7 yrs, btw, before anyone presumes I'm anti-SAHP).

Littlemonsters - Morethan seems to have a particular axe to grind.

Morethan, why begrudge childcare help where all adults work when you have taken tax credits for years as you don't work. The cost of 30 hours free childcare pre school is a lot less than tax credits and whatever came before it that you claimed.

After the free 30 hours cease those workers will still be paying tax and paying their own way.

I think it should be funded out of necessity, not choice as other benefits are.
So if you can manage on one wage you shouldn't receive any help.
Then if a couple decide to split working hours to two p/t wages it's up to them.
You can't carry on supporting those who don't need it when we are supposed to be capping benefits.

I don't have a problem with it if it allows parents to work. But it should be means tested. Free school meals should be means tested too.

But the 'other intangible stuff' of parenting which you speak of... What has that got to do with WOH or SAH?

I would completely agree that what is valuable to society (and govt) is good parenting: raising children to be positive and productive members of society. But I can't see the relevance of WOH/SAH there. Good (or bad!) parenting is not the preserve of either group

Surely by your own reckoning though Ivy they should be frugal and save to enable this

I'm guessing that must be the exception though... The most expensive form of care is normally for under 12 months olds. I remember breathing a sigh of relief when mine progressed from the 'baby room' to 'toddler room' at nursery because it was marginally cheaper!!
I am totally with you on the logistics of care when they reach school age... It can be harder to access and organise, and in many ways the days of an 8am drop off at nursery where they will be all day, rather than juggling wraparound care, is easier.

But ultimately, for the vast majority it must be far cheaper once the kids are in school, if you calculate your costs over the entire year and not just singling out August which is likely to be an expensive month.

Besides, for many nurseries (certainly ours) you pay full whack all year round anyway- there's no reduction just because you're on leave and don't need to use childcare.

Does anybody know how it will work anyway?
if it's going to mean lowering ratio's over crowded settings, cheaper quality care who would want it anyway.
Some nurseries are bad enough anyway without the extra dc and more limited space.
Also, won't most people want the same hours? I don't know how many will cope tbh and pretty sure many won't be able to provide any more places due to size, costs, training staff etc.