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.

How is all this being funded? The welfare bill continues to rise rapidly, labour are hell bent on bankcrupting this country.

You are basing this off your opinion though, how many people actually don't want to work. The economically inactive people from 16-64 are actually either students, carers, sick, or retired.

If we supported disabled people and helped people get better that would reduce the economically inactive people. If childcare was an option for those then that would again reduce those who are not contributing to the system.

Governments don't generally introduce policies without the evidence behind them that it will be a beet gain for the economy, while we may not see it straight away, it's a longer term investment.

That is not the case at all. Of course I work because I want a good life, but I shouldn’t have to subsidise the lives of those who make poor choices in life and have loads of children that they cannot afford. I repeat, this is not aimed at those who are ill, disabled, or fallen on hard times. It is aimed at the genuinely feckless individuals who use welfare as a way of life. It’s incentivising them again!

Of course economics must be considered
We do that in education all the time
You can’t ignore it

I disagree in terms of others take over if £100ks reduce hours
That’s not the case for everyones job at all

If you read the thread just one study has been posted to show the financial benefits of not having a cliff edge

The introduction of policies without thorough financial research beforehand is exactly why we are in the mess we are

As someone who does not receive 30 free hours and pays £1000s each month…I welcome this!!! My child is going to state school and some of the children NEED to go to nursery before hand. It will help all children.

many people out there do not want to work, they want to remain on benefits
Oh this bollocks again.
The majority of people who claim benefits work permanently or intermittently (due to insecure jobs not personal preference) or have health reasons.

How can they sit at the job centre for 30 hours without childcare though?

It’s being funded by the ~5% of people who aren’t eligible for this policy, who pay 50% of all tax.

I honestly think Labour and their proposed policies are further running this country into the ground.

You don’t need childcare to apply for jobs at home.

It will help those you claim it isn't aimed at too though.

I said many, not all, not even the majority, but many.

I think the govt need to focus on where tax is wasted.

Where are you that it costs 30k in nursery fees?

Playing devil's advocate...should a woman who is living on benefits but chooses to be a SAHM be "looked down upon" yet a woman who marries a wealthy man and chooses to be a SAHM is respected? They are both choosing not to work.

No but that poster said 'or be at the job centre 30 hours' - how are they going to do that without childcare? What about when they get offered a job and can't start as they have no childcare in place so can't actually take the job?

One isn’t rinsing the benefit system though, and has planned according to household income.

Last para
They introduced a cliff edge
That’s not a financially sensible policy

The Introduced the Indi education tax and did not base it on figures by the ISC who had all the intel but by guesses ( yes guesses ! ) by their own guys. Just to push through a popular policy

Governments pull this crap all the time to get votes

Well, quite… therefore further deeming this policy a disaster waiting to happen eh?

Oh don't be so silly.

We all subsidise people who make poor choices. It's called society. I'm paying my taxes and subsidising people who take drugs, eat kebabs, drive drunk, choke on cherry tomatoes, smoke in bed etc etc etc.

And I'm subsidising you!

You really think you'd feel happier if a subset of kids are prevented from attending nursery? That bitterness won't go away, it'll just move to some other target if not these kids.

Surely this should not be an option though. Be a SAHM if affordability allows but it shouldn't be government funded.

This government didn't introduce the £100k cut off. That was the Tories?

London!

Local nurseries vary from £2.3k-2.7k a month.

3/4 years ago they were more like £1.8/2.1k.

5-10% annual increases plus no free hours or tax free childcare.

Thats why people are exasperated at the idea of universal… other than higher earners. Two in nursery and you’ve wiped out a £100k salary.

What? No, because they'll have the childcare to take the job won't they?

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all - you’re using emotive statements to make false accusations and conflating my points.

I don’t think it is financially very viable. I don’t mind paying towards those in genuine need. I do not wish to further fuel a welfare state that’s being abused.

And where are the nursery places?