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.

Some don’t have that “choice” if their family and support network live in London…. Also what about those who rent then? Again to be nr their family.

Triplets are so exceptionally rare (0.03% of births so around 1 in 3.3k) that you cannot realistically design a tax system which takes that into account automatically. If you’re looking at the 0.03% births, combined with household income equivalent to 1 adult in the top 5% (across all ages ranges, higher earners likely skewed older so less likely to have newborns) plus a second adult earning over the median you’re likely looking at very small numbers of families affected. Though I have no particular objection to creating a specific carve out for that.

But it’s the same argument regardless of figures. It should just be universal if they’re going to bring it in, it needs to be fair. Tax payers can’t be expected to prop up everyone and everything without benefitting from something back.

@WhatsAWeekend in some ways yes but I think the government are especially interested in growth in consumption and obviously higher earners have a lower marginal propensity to consume.

@GimmieABreakOr3 are you wilfully ignoring the fact that this is a policy designed to broaden the tax base?

Most people have a choice of where they live, especially high earners, who I assume have good educations and options.
Many, many people have to move to cheaper places when they first get on the housing ladder and many people live far away from their family/support network.
It's a choice.

Without being accused of being a cliche..

Do you not consider the benefit of being a high earner to be.. being a high earner?

We didn’t get childcare because it didn’t exist. If we had another child now, we wouldn’t qualify because of our earnings.

But we would still have the money, which is the benefit.

I don’t mind propping people up. I don’t require propping up, other people do. I may be a rarity, but I’m okay with having broader shoulders.

Well they ought to look at other means of broadening the tax base too - which means not encouraging people to earn less so that they’re not disadvantaged by extortionate nursery fees. Surely you can see that too?

It’s great, because when I lose my job soon because the government sit back and let British companies offshore work to India and other cheaper countries, I’m hopefully just going to get to sit at home while someone else pays my expenses including childcare. I’ve paid enough into the system so can’t bloody wait! Maybe I can get a council house too? Finally some child benefit? Don’t know why I fucking bothered working so hard all these years.

@BlueRedCat So they can stay at home and have someone else mind their child?

That's a choice isn't it? To live near family. You don't HAVE to live near family.

That really depends on how much you earn, if you’re just over the threshold, that really plunges a household quite drastically but if you’re earning 170-200k a year, then of course you have that cushioning.

Also where is the incentive to work and do well in life if you can just get everything for free anyway? I went to university and studied for years and I’m hammered by student loans and income tax etc. I’m by no means rich, but I don’t qualify for childcare either. And I have to lug myself to work each day, don’t have a choice otherwise I’d lose my house.

Higher earners reducing their earnings does broaden the tax base as those individuals are then paying relatively less tax.

Plus I suspect the government likes the incentive for those people to save more into pensions.

Jesus Christ, that’s so devoid of empathy.

Having children is a choice too, you don’t HAVE to have children - where does that attitude of yours end then?

That doesn’t mean it’s not cost effective to pay for higher earners nursery fees 🤷‍♀️

Why would we continue with a policy that is not cost effective !

Why would any Government deliberately reduce their income tax take !

So
If at this time an overhaul in the system is being considered
and if the cost is being considered ( it is mad not to ) it is clearly cost effective to pay for higher earners fees

Again you are making an ill informed assumption that everyone who is not working is choosing that.

How do we guarantee this proposed policy is going to broaden the tax base? I think it’s open to exploitation.

Also, I don’t see how paying less tax broadens the tax base, can you enlighten me on that one?

The argument for it being universal is basically that other people seem to be getting something for free so high earners want the same. Yet if anyone proposes a universal income system they’re met with a “don’t be daft, it’d never work” argument 😂

Universal free childcare is a completely different argument to the tapering one (which I actually agree with) or the assessment based on household one (which I also agree with).

Well you've just said it, your house is your incentive to continue to work.

What about those middle earners you mentioned? I’m a middle earner.

This class system in the UK is very problematic, as is the tax system sadly.

@Givemeachaitealatte
wouldn't be paying for a higher earners nursery fees anyway.

Exactly.

For decades, even when there was still genuine uncertainty about whether childcare for under 3s was in the best interest of most children, study after study found that the group who benefit most from professional childcare are children who have any kind of deprived home life - poverty, parents who didn't finish their own education, families with nobody in employment.

The point of state education is to raise everyone up - this really should start with nursery for children of families on benefits. They'd have a far better chance of entering school with any special needs either identified or at least flagged for observation, and toilet trained, able to use cutlery, and (if no relevant additional needs) speaking in sentences.

It's in your child's interest to give their future classmates the best possible chance not to already be years behind when they start school OP.

I'm not sure who promised you life would be fair? It'd be a lot fairer if the playing field was a little bit more equal for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It's not about punishing the parents, it's about society as a whole.

Middle earners get free childcare. If you don’t get free childcare cos your individual income is over 100k you are well into the top 5% so can’t reasonably be counted as “middle”.

Yet meanwhile someone who doesn’t earn gets free childcare, free housing, subsidised days out etc.

Can you tell me how that is fair? Can you see why that makes people resentful?

I don’t think that makes me bitter or jealous. A lot of other people feel similar, and rightly so!

Oh come on.

My incentive is the clothes I can afford to buy my son. The holidays. The house we have in the area we have it.

People do not get everything for free.

My brother and SIL don’t work, by choice. They think it’s genuinely insane that we’re going to Scotland in August. Scotland. It’s up the road.

On the other side of that coin are the genuine people at my son’s school who can’t work and would love to give their kids the lives we can.

It isn’t black and white, and there is an incentive to work - once you earn over the amount you’d get in benefits. Which you and I both do.

Instead of focussing on how people with less receive more support, I prefer to be grateful I don’t need that support and count my blessings that I can provide. Unlike you, my capacity to do that might end sooner, because my kid won’t get less disabled.

If/when that happens, I’d be grateful if support was available.