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.

I doubt nursery is going to do that unfortunately.

Yes but it isn't many. That's a lie.

Maybe the government could focus on tax fraud first. That costs us all a hell of a lot more.

You can't pick and choose though, it would be almost impossible...and costly.

Person A who can't work for genuine reasons gets the same benefits as Person B who could work if they wanted to.

Unless the government spends even more money in an attempt to filter out the Person B's from Person A's then both Person A and Person B will get the extended hours for their children.

At the nurseries or childminders in the area where they live.

How about all parents pay for their children to be looked after out of their salary rather than the state subsidising childcare and if you can't afford it, then have one parent stay at home to look after them? That's how it used to be for previous generations.

You're happy enough to take state subsidies, as you somehow consider yourself deserving of them, but begrudge others doing so. What about 'hardworking' people without children - are they allowed to resent you getting something they don't?

😂 there’s a shortage of places, some gave waiting lists for years and you have to sign up even before your child is born

You're using emotive statements to make false claims.

Where's your research evidence it is being abused?

It is fact that benefit fraud is low, that work pays more than benefits, that the vast majority of claimants either do work, want to work or can't work and that tax fraud/evasion dwarfs benefit fraud.

You want poor kids to have limited educational opportunities.

There isn't where I live.

@WimbyAce But if it's only affordable for them because they married a high earner? I am sure a woman who didn't may equally want to stay at home?
For the record it would never be my choice. It wasn't when I was married to a six-figure earner, and it isn't now I'm married to a low earner.
But when should it not be a choice for women?

I didn’t say any particular Party did

The pp said ‘Governments don’t do ….etc etc

Governments means all in general
i responded accordingly

You have assumed that they are 2 parents. What do you suggest for the single parent? Unfortunately I think its a lot more common today. I dont think its a case of begrudgingly people are just fed up. Tbh the line does have to be drawn some where.

But there is a significant shortfall across the country

Surging demand—spurred by the government's expanded funded-hours scheme—combined with severe staffing crises and underfunding, has resulted in long waiting lists, forcing roughly half of England to be classified as a "childcare desert". 1, 2, 3]

That’s what I mean - if they are getting 30 hours of childcare provided free then I’d expect parents at work, at a course, in education or at the job centre for those hours looking for work.
obviously being reasonable it won’t be the full 30 with travel time etc

With the 30 hours offered to all, some of those out of work could train in early years and work in nurseries.

Oh no, that's right - we don't want anyone to have the opportunity to start a new career and improve their lives, we want them to stay trapped.

I’d fully support that to be fair.

Creche at the job centre
New policy by Labour to require employers to give people time to find childcare

I’m sure Labour are on to this
they never just do soundbites 😉

Now you’re just making stuff up 😂 So because I’ve suggested universal childcare/nursery education for all, that means I want poor children to remain disadvantaged. Ok, I see what you’re doing 😂

I mean it isn't though is it? It certainly wasn't a choice I had available. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make tbh?

@concertinacornflake they aren't trapped though. If someone wants to study or persue working in a nursery they can.... they can they would just increase the nursery hours once they have secured a job.

I'm not saying that is my view, rather playing Devil's advocate. The OP has said she has a husband and they both need to work to pay their mortgage. It could be argued that they chose to take out that mortgage, so why should the state pay for their children to be cared for, just so they can afford it.
What doesn't sit well with me is why the OP (and others) think it's fine for the state to prop up their income so that they can improve their lifestyle, but resent the state helping children from more disadvantaged families to get an early boost.

Yes that's definitely very easy

Not like there's decades of academic research explaining precisely how difficult it is to make that transition.

It's frustrating going over the same facts while people argue black is white.

You've made stuff up right through the thread, I thought I'd join you with hyperbolic remarks.

You've talked utter bollocks about benefits.

If you rtt
i was responding to someone who made the comment there were places in her area
She tagged someone who posted there is a shortage of places

I posted the proof there is a shortage of places
You comment is irrelevant to my post of the facts

We can’t increase the numbers without first increasing the provision available.

How do you work this out? I’m on over £100k, my partner isn’t. We are in London so the extortionate mortgage on a 3 bed terrace in zone 4 (because we scraped together a deposit and get punished for it in interest rates) bills ever-increasing, and nursery costs of over £2200 a month for one child mean we haven’t been able to have a second child yet.
I could move further out and see my child even less whilst paying in train fares probably the same amount I’d save on housing costs. Or I could sack my job in and become another woman leaving the workforce who pays a shit load of tax and can’t even get a dentist appointment. Meanwhile others live in the same neighbourhood as me and don’t contribute anything.

Just as an example. Someone I know has kids both school age. Has never made any attempt to get a job. Never says to me 'Oh I wish I could get a job as I am so hard done by on benefits". Therefore the assumption is that she is quite comfortable on benefits, otherwise surely she would be keen to get a job to improve her 'income'? So we are now saying this woman would be entitled to 30 hours free childcare(age dependent) Someone that has absolutely zero intention of contributing to the economy.