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.

This!!! Thank you.

To clarify, I have no issue whatsoever with benefits being used as a “safety net” for those who find themselves between jobs, suddenly taken ill, made redundant etc etc.

It is the entitled attitude of people (often generationally) conditioned that they should have an automatic right to be a parent, even if one/both parents are out of work. And then throw out the “we are an ageing population, my multiple kids will be carers for your elderly parents in the future”. Errr, no. Because these people won’t even take a job in the care industry now. Much easier to sign up to UC with “anxiety” around working and leech off the state.

Honestly, it’s making my husband and I want to emigrate. We’d love a sibling for our child but at present we pay £756 a month for two days a week nursery (16 hours p/w total), there’s been an increase of 8.5% in nursery fees since April to cover the shortfall/losses the nursery has due to the free government funding.

BTW: it’s not “free”, the higher taxpayers are funding it!

It’s the same as care homes
Self funders prop up the lack of funding for tax payer funded
We need this principle thrown out

Interesting that Shirley Whitaker mentions potty training. Has she been reading your thread @GimmieABreakOr3 ?

@RubyQueues I think this is a problem we have, higher tax payers leaving. I’ve been to multiple leaving drinks in the last year or two, people moving to various places, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore, US, Australia. Some of my family have left also.

My partner has passports which would allow us to move to various countries with no visa requirements, so I think we might be moving also in a few years. It’s hard to get on in the U.K. The tax rates are very high, and then you pick up silly things like huge increases in your childcare bill to cover the rolling out of ‘free’ childcare hours.

I think you are talking rubbish. 😂

We don’t have an endless pot of money in the UK, and the welfare system should be for those in genuine need, of course that applies to those who fall on hard times, or have disabled children etc.

However giving those who don’t truly truly need it 30 hours extra childcare is not only unfeasible, it’s truly unfair on those who work hard and contribute to the tax system. I’m not talking about the ultra wealthy, I’m talking about middle earners who get barely nothing in support.

Precisely. My partner and I are considering emigration in the next few years as well. It’s not worth it living in the UK!

I’ve reread Shirley’s post, I don’t think she says anywhere that she “doesn’t mean people who fall on hard times, or those with disabled children”?

I think, like this thread, she’s just talking about people who don’t work. It’s all well and good saying “not you” after the fact.

I notice you didn’t mention whether child poverty is real or not? Do you agree with Shirley that it’s not real?

I think we can all accept that in some cases, it is parenting issues and laziness. But it’s the kids who lose out, and why you’d have an issue with taking steps to support the kids of those lazy parents is beyond me. It’s hardly their fault they’ve got lazy parents.

Lots of people work hard and contribute to the tax system. High earners (because 100k+ isn’t middle earning) don’t have the monopoly on hard work.

I’ve been a net contributor for many years. Still wouldn’t catch me penalising children for their parent’s issues, or begrudging them the support they need to not fall way behind their peers.

I agree with @SleeplessInWherever, to a degree anyway.

I'm one of those pesky net contributors (I've worked that out carefully!). I have no children (although my DH has adult children). We have a combined income that puts us in the "top middle" I guess, for earnings.

Children don't ask to be born, and they deserve at least a stab at an equal start in life. This seems to cause perceptions of unfairness at both ends of the wealth scale, but that doesn't mean children should be punished for having poor (or bad - although I'm sure most people love their children and want the best for them) parents. Early years education is vital to life chances, and should be available to all because it benefits us all. It should be of good quality as well. Properly funded and valued. It's the sort of thing - along with the NHS and good care for the elderly - which I'm happy to pay a bit more for.

In terms of benefits to the kids

see the research on beneficial hours upthread
ie 15-20 hrs

i think we need to put it into perspective why people are not happy with this proposal. I see time and time again mumsnet going after ‘high earners’. So let’s break that down.

let’s summarise a typical 4 person family. Who have had to have kids quite quickly because they’ve spent most of their life trying to get a stable home for said children and both in nursery. (You know - the ‘don’t have kids if you can’t afford them scenario)

an average 3 bedroom home in South east is £600k. Nursery fees for two children £2500. (If you are lucky!) mortgage, commuting, car costs, bills, living. You are looking at circa £8-10k a month depending on where you live.

To be (god forbid!) comfortable and afford a well earned holiday from time to time with a bit in savings for future so you don’t burden the state, you are looking at a household income between £170k-200k. To be just making it, you need to £140k - £170k. Keeping in mind as a ‘high earner’ that’s £101k take home in your pocket pay if you are on £170k.

nursery fees £30k
mortgage £36k
utilities / council tax £ 7,200
food £7,800
car / insurance / tax / fuel £6.5k
commuting x 3 a week (which is becoming more unlikely) £6,000

that leaves you with £7.5k for pensions, savings, emergencies, being a family, holidays etc etc.

All whilst both of you work full time and say goodbye to your kids 8am-6pm Monday - Friday.

anything below £120k you are relying on credit cards and debt to live.

it sounds a lot. But when you break it back, it really isn’t. You can see why people are fed up.

Exactly!

Good idea, then they can do something in exchange for their benefits. Like picking up litter, cleaning off graffiti etc.
.

Well quite but the argument will always be you don’t need to have kids, you don’t need to live down south etc.

I get fed up because DH and I are technically high earners but definitely not on 100k, we hover around 130k combined income. We’re in the north so lower mortgage and DC are all in school now so no longer have to pay nursery fees. We still struggle to get by.

We’re highly educated - me a PhD and post doc from Oxford, him an MBA. I grew up on a council estate so worked my absolute arse off to achieve this. We get fuck all. We were looking forward to the universal free breakfast clubs so at least we’d get SOMETHING but it hasn’t been rolled out to our area.

When I was younger I was super idealistic but now I’m a bit older and self reliant after a lot of hard work this sort of thing does piss me off.

And just for comparison purposes. If two people took home £170k but split say £99k and £71k. Your ‘take home pay’ is £ 118k (already £17k better off) and you do not have nursery fees on top of that. (Even if you did pay some because it’s not ‘free free’ and term time only) say it is £10k a year. You are already £27k better off in your pocket than the ‘high earner’

it just doesnt make sense. To ask the ‘high earner’ to contribute even more to fund people who are out of work, is not on.

it needs to be universal.

Okay great.

If the benefit is only 15-20hrs, we’ll all pay for everything above that, and get rid of the working parent 30hrs entitlement altogether.

That would save lots of money, and after all - EYFS provision isn’t for adults, it’s for children.

If the extra EYFS curriculum education is not benefiting the children, then we’ll all get the same 15hrs, and then everyone’s on the same even (better, apparently) playing field.

for me it’s just not an argument. Why shouldn’t I live near my family ? And why should I not have kids? There’s going to be a population crisis if we don’t. And, I want them. I want a family. I want to work. It’s a joke.

im sorry you are in that situation. You’ve tried to turn your life into a great one. I hope you are proud of your achievements, it sounds like you have worked extremely hard to get there.

That depends on what it’s for
For those not working or part time
it should be providing for the kids ( and fir those working hours if pt)

but
We can’t ignore the fact that working parents need provision and supporting that supports them into keeping their jobs and not cutting hours
So for working parents it’s both
for the kids
and for the parents

For non working parents its
just for the kids
and for that research shows 15-20hrs

The EYFS education framework doesn’t know if children have working parents or not. It’s either better for them, or it isn’t. It doesn’t (and can’t) specify attainment goals by parental employment.

If there’s no educational benefit to the children being there the extra hours, let’s not subsidise it.

Once we hit the magical 20hrs that children need to learn, then surely it just becomes childcare. Which it would be reasonable we pay for, right?

I don’t pay for schooling, but I do for the wraparound childcare. Let’s apply the same to EYFS education vs childcare, using the magical 15-20hrs, and see who complains first.

Exactly.

You are completely ignoring the financial benefit of working parents

Yes
Of course part of the reason for nurseries is childcare

It is after all called
Early education AND childcare

I’m not, I’m suggesting we apply the same logic as we do for the rest of the education system.

If it’s education, it’s available equal access to all. If it’s childcare, we pay for it.

Apparently the education stops at 20hrs, so at that point.. let’s all either pay or not use the childcare.

I suspect what’s really happening here though is that we know the benefit isn’t just 15-20hrs, but would like our children to have access to that benefit because we work and others don’t.

It’s a terrible idea, so the unemployed parent/parents get to sit at home and have 5 days a week 9-3 to themselves. Absolutely not!

There is already a shortage of nursery places with long wait lists - so now working parents will be competing for places against people on benefits!

Exactly. It’s not been thought out at all. And we need to prioritise those in work as they’re essentially the economy!

I think you get 3 months before funding is withdrawn

But those in 'genuine need' in your eyes claim the same benefits as those who aren't in genuine need. Should people with genuine needs miss out to be sure those not in genuine need don't benefit?