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 agree 2 children in the same short period will be very expensive. That's a choice though. My sister in law choose to have 3 kids under 7. She doesn't work because its not worth while paying the nursery fees. So your not wrong but you cant have it all.

Multiples

As a high rate taxpayer for many years, whose children were born when family credit enabled me to work and pay towards childcare, and work my way out of poverty, I applaud the idea. A great use of my taxes. I would like ALL kids to have access to early years education.

I deplore the whiny mean comments of ‘I didn’t get it so you shouldn’t’ or the tone deaf ‘why can’t high earners get it’ ? Simple answer . You don’t need it ! It’s not going to make any difference to your children’s life outcomes.

Rtt

Report on tax gain by providing childcare to those currently exempt because of the cliff edge

Not doing something when there’s a financial gain if you do it is pure envy politics
Now Labour have the stats they need to wise up

Exactly this! If you want to be a SAHM and can afford that or choose to rely on the government then just parent your children. I wish we could afford to be around more, time with your children should be the greatest privilege. I just don’t want to rely on hand outs to do that.

The children who have the sole attention of their parents to teach them should actually be at more of an advantage.

That is fascinating

The 15 hours is for term time only. I imagine the 30 hours is the same? Have you considered how this would affect the nurseries?

??
I think you might have missed the point of my post
‘multiples’

and to be fair I should have explained, so that’s on me

I tagged you because you noted two kids was a choice
With multiples ie twins etc it isn’t

@whatsaweekend I understand you meant twins or triplets. That is a tiny minority though. My point remains the same we simply cant afford it and neither can the nurseries. Theres reasons why funding only covers half term hours as it is.......

I do agree we can’t afford it atm

It would be cost effective to drop the cliff edge though

Why do people care so much if someone worse off than themselves gets some help? It’s so mean spirited. It’s literally not taking anything away from you.

We are net tax contributors and get zero help, not even child benefit, yet still don’t feel able to have a second child because of what it would cost in childcare.

the welfare system in this country is fucked, the people having children without having the means to support them, ( or even worse, having them be born into care like the reason news stories, ) yet feckless drug addicts/unemployed/career scroungers can breed to their hearts content?!! Children deserve better than to be born into the benefits lifestyle

It is quite literally taking away from the taxpayer…..

I hate that you lump drug addicts and unemployed in the same group. No one is immune from being unemployed. Would you suggest abortion to a friend who found herself jobless whilst pregnant?

Nope but I’d suggest abortion to a drug addict not in a relationship reliant on the state for income.

I would assume that they would be on the radar of social services anyway. But they wont insist on abortion.

Actually it is

Thank you Shirley Whitaker, some common sense!!!

Yes ours went up by almost 30% (with hardly any notice) to make up the inadequate subsidies and NI the labour government added. We ended up having to withdraw our two from nursery, and use a combination of school nursery for the eldest, and a nanny. the cost for two children went up to more than the entirety of what you receive net on a £100k salary.

The crazy thing is, so many of my colleagues and friends with young children are making sure they stay under the £100k adjusted net income with pension and charity salary sacrifices, going slightly part time, using car and cycle schemes etc we as a society are missing out on a lot of tax that could have been earned here. Remember the tax rate over £100k is 62% for a chunk of income. I actually wonder if it would be more money in tax raised than spent on the universal provision, because people would do less to avoid it

I was made redundant last year and am facing unemployment in the new year (obviously spending all my spare time after I’ve worked hard all day, done all the home/family stuff a lone parent needs to do, applying for all the non-existent jobs).
I did not breed recklessly. Oh, I’ll lose my home before I get any help with housing from the State.
Don’t worry, I’m post menopausal so won’t use all my free time to have more and more babies and expect you to fund raising them.

@january1244 my baby’s nursery costs £28,000 a year. With 30 free hours and tax-free childcare, it would cost £13,000.

So that’s £15,000 net I have to find, over £35k pre-tax over £100k - just to recoup the loss of access to it.

Ditto on everyone I know working part-time or using salary sacrifice because of this stupid policy.

It’s absolute madness. I cannot believe they persist with saying it’s the right thing to do - talk about a tax on aspiration.

Sorry, why are you taking their comment so personally? It doesn’t even sound like it was directed at someone like you in those circumstances. It’s directed at the feckless who choose a benefit lifestyle with zero financial planning.

I am sorry you’ve been made redundant and I hope you find a new job soon!

Does Shirley Whitaker understand that:

• Being on benefits isn’t necessarily synonymous with being a “shirker”?
• People on benefits don’t get more than workers, or literally nobody would work.
• Some have “those children” and then fall on unfortunate times, or either the parent or children are disabled, etc etc.
• There “is no child poverty” is just out and out nonsense. There definitely is.

Shirley Whitaker isn’t speaking common sense. She’s speaking rubbish.

PP listed the following to direct her vitriol at:
feckless drug addicts
unemployed
career scroungers

So yes, I did take it personally. So often the unemployed are treated as lazy, money scrounging scum. Yes, I'm sure those people will say "Oh, but I didn't mean YOU", but when you're already struggling, it does touch a nerve when 'the unemployed' are treated as a homogenous work shy lump.

That said, thank you for your kind words.

They can go to school nursery at 3 for a few hours a day to learn how to socialise or, I don’t know, maybe their parents can take them to groups since they’re home all day. They don’t need to be in childcare before this if someone is at home to care for them every day.

The state shouldn’t prop up people on benefits even more than they already have, not in the least because policies like this completely piss working people off and turn everyone even more to the far right.