Is extending 30 hours childcare to parents on benefits fair?

[GimmieABreakOr3]

30 free hours of childcare to those in receipt of benefits is not fair.

Currently, the 30-hour childcare scheme requires parents to be in work to qualify. However, the UK Education Secretary has called for this to be extended to parents on benefits.

Many argue that those who are unemployed don’t need childcare. I agree. How is it fair that those of us in work are always propping up those who are not? It’s proper two tier Britain if you ask me when it comes to those in work compared to those who are unemployed and on welfare. I think Labour are ruining this country.

Yes. And I know that we fund more childcare through taxation than at any point in history. I’m happy to do that to help out middle and low earners, and I’m happy to do it to ensure children in lowest income households get early years specialist access, and those low income parents who are willing to work aren’t trapped by a system which won’t fund childcare for the first few months of employment. I would not at all be happy with taxation funding the childcare costs of the top 5% of earners.

If we were to spend more on high(er) earners though, I’d look to see how thresholds could be done by household rather than individual. Because a 100k single parent takes home less than two 50k earners and I’m not sure the former should be paying full childcare while the latter get 30hrs free.

I expect it is to try and improve life chances for the kids and not to specifically benefit the parents. Maybe for some it will give them the space to get back into work but mostly its to give the kids a better start. It will cost now but hopefully pay off in years to come.

Great idea. As soon as there’s enough affordable childcare for working parents in all areas and there is spare money to invest in additional resources it should be delivered. Not before then. .

I thought you lost the funding if either parent earned 100K.
So you can have a household income of a lot more than 80K and still be eligible.

FWIW, I am a single income household on a lot less than that and am part of the tax contributing population that fund most of these benefits.

Mad. Why would you even want to put your baby in nursery if you didn't have to?

This just shows how out of touch some people are. If you’re earning over 80k you are a high earner. The “ooh but london” argument is bullshit too. There’s millions of people in London earning less than half of the “doesn’t go far” 80k. How much do you think the nursery workers who look after your kids earn? Cos I bet it is a hell of a lot less than 80k!

Tbh, this sounds like it is good for the kids. So (possibly) the exact sort of children this policy is designed to benefit.

Yeah, it’s true. However, I’m highlighting that just because someone is classed as a high earner, it doesn’t mean life is rosy for them. They lose a lot of benefits that are afforded to others, and they have to work very hard to maintain it…

They’re exactly the children that would benefit, yes.

It’s unfortunate, but given the option of staying at home and playing independently on phones or going to nursery and getting some vital education, they’d absolutely benefit from 30hrs.

I think it’s you who is out of touch. You seem to think anyone who earns over 80k has an easy life. That’s actually far from the truth, and the reality is quite different.

In my opinion, the most privileged in society are the those who have an enormity of wealth that they are actually cushioned by any changes in policy and don’t actually have to work to pay for a mortgage or rent.

OP look at it this way. The government has two key goals for the economy, growth and reducing unemployment. This clearly helps with both of those. Extending it to high earners does not, as they are by definition already employed.

And you can get it on a combined household income of £198k, it’s just that neither parent can exceed £100k individually.

Oh, and again: I AM WORKING AND A TAX CONTRIBUTING PERSON. Sorry for shouting but I’ve been quite clear on this point and it doesn’t seem to be getting through.

I never said it was an easy life. I earn a little bit less than that and my life isn’t easy. I said 80k is top 5% of earners. You can get mad as you like but that is an objective fact.

True but low earners will get the childcare for free. Where I am a baby under 1 is over £100 per day. So essentially £25k of net salary a year. If you have 2 at nursery you could be paying 40k a year in childcare fees. The take home pay of someone earning 80k is about £56k all you would be taking home a year is £14k. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Precisely.

Someone earning 80k is below the threshold so entitled to the free hours.

I do have a problem where single parent households can only have £99k before losing the childcare while dual income households can have £198k. I’d be inclined to have it set at a household income of (around) 120k with proper tapering up to around 160k so earning more always means more cash though.

But what if they earn £160k but have triplets and have to pay £75k in childcare costs per year. Seems very unfair to not take into account how many children you are paying for nursery costs at the same time.

Don't people who earn £80k get the free hours - isn't the cut off £100k?

If it's going to become universal they must remove the £100k cliff edge. It's wildly unfair.

Suggest reading the thread
research shows
free childcare for higher earners would actually bring in more in income tax

heres part of that post upthread

• Analysis from the Centre for British Progress finds changing the broken system could raise more in new tax revenue than the cost of the extra childcare_
• HM Treasury could net between £130 million and £425 million by 2029/30, depending on the extent to which parents change their behaviour

So on the basis it would be cost effective to offer free childcare for higher earners
It actually makes financial sense to offer it
and
is financial nonsense not to

post also for @yonem as more tax income = supports growth

TBF they already are disadvantaged
Free pre school education should help a bit , but the disadvantages run deep

Your argument would have held more strength if you'd used accurate figures.

People on low incomes also work very hard.

HNRTFT but my immediate thoughts are that it is a positive way of helping people on benefits get a job without the uncertainty of worrying about childcare.

To actively look for employment and to have childcare in place when you do find work.

I earn a little less than that, I have my own house, 2 children and I'm a single mum. I live fairly comfortably on that wage.

People are also making choices about where they live/work, why should I pay for a high earner that chooses to live in London and have chosen a property with a high mortgage?