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.

Research shows 15-20 hours is the educational benefit
So that’s all that’s needed to level up all kids

Beyond that parents need support to stay in work
The country needs their taxes
and
As a post upthread there is a tax gain to the country to pay for higher earners aswell

We can of course ignore the financial gains to the country and shoot ourselves further in the foot
Then there will be even less in the coffers and more picking up welfare if we don’t make the system work for all working parents

It’s a simple sensible solution for all to support working parents and their children when they need it and
non working parents when their children do

What do you mean exactly? Provide an example of this in practice.

Isn't the research showing 15-20 hours American which has a completely different early years system, not to mention educational system on the whole? Or am I thinking of something else?

How do you know that those receiving benefits are unemployed? Or do you mean unemployment benefit specifically?

Well I won't go into the reasons why this is a good idea, but I' m genuinely interested OP as to why you don't agree that the children of those on benefits shouldn't benefit from this? It doesn't affect you either way - you'll still get the 30 hours, so why do you even care?

You keep saying you don't mean people on benefits who are in genuine need when if they claim the same benefits as those you don't deem to be in need, you do mean those people too because if you take away benefits from the people you don't deem to be in need, it means taking away benefits from genuine people too.

Such as extending the 30 hours may be really helpful to some of those genuine people but you want them to miss out because of the people you don't believe are genuine so it isn't really ''but not you'' because it would mean them missing out too.

But surely you can recognise that nursery fees aren't forever and in a few years you will have 30k extra a year.

There are not many (any probably) on benefits who would have £14,000 left to spend on food, pensions, holidays and entertainment in a year.

You also own your own home. I do too even though I am disabled and claim benefits - but many dont and won't have that as an asset to fall back on if needed.
We purchased the house, amazingly with a deposit and have been tied to bank interest rates ever since. All home owners with a mortgage are.

Now before you come at me for owning an asset- would I be better selling it - I think id gain about 20k as we were hit badly in 2008 and claim housing benefit to give to a landlord?

Im mid 40s and haven't been able to contribute to a pension since my late 20s. I just dont have any spare money

As a family of 3 we have about £200 p/m to spend on food - this is getting more and more difficult.

I had a stable family life before I had DC, planned, saved for, family support
But I became disabled anyway.

A lot of people on mumsnet just cant seem to grasp that life is unfair.
Unfair to them, unfair to others.
If you spend all your time seething about what others have and you don't it makes for a pretty shitty mindset.

BTW I think that the increased childcare hours aren't the best idea. I would bring back surestart. We dont have the free hours in NI but still do have Surestart and it really does help some families who need support with the basics of childcare.

.A lot of people on mumsnet just cant seem to grasp that life is unfair.
Unfair to them, unfair to others.
If you spend all your time seething about what others have and you don't it makes for a pretty shitty mindset

I agree
So let’s not spend time seething about a working parent having money to pay into a pension or to go on holiday
Lets focus on the logistics

There aren’t enough places to accommodate an increase
There is no benefit to kids past 15/20hours
The country can’t afford to pay for everyone
The country can’t afford to lose tax paying workers re reduced hours

Keep it practical and sensible and look at this from a purely rational point of view

I don't think it is fair to complain in one breath that those that didn't wait until they are in the higher tax bracket are irresponsibile or bad parents and in the next breath state you are desperate for government support to make ends meet. As I've said before I am in support of universal free childcare, it is good for the economy but you can't judge anyone that isn't earning over £100,000 as bad a parent if you haven't waited until you have more than enough to cover childcare for a few short years taking into account inflation and the financial stability to cover long periods of unemployment, disability etc. If your concern is everyone being self suffiencint 30 hours of nursery shouldn't be on your radar.

You haven’t provided an example as to what you mean. Please provide and distinguish the differences as to what you are assuming I mean?

Thank you! 🙏

You’re right - life is unfair, so they shouldn’t expect 30 hours free childcare while in receipt of benefits. How about applying the same statement you’ve just made then?

Such double standards.

Also, people shouldn’t have more children than they can afford.

@GimmieABreakOr3 What about anyone who is not in paid employment - being entitled to free childcare. Surely that's fairer?

But doesn’t it depend on household income?

what about when said children go to school ? Not all schools have wrap around care. Camps that cost £50 a day during holidays because annual leave doesn’t cover it.

£30k doesn’t miraculously become available.

we used to have tax relief. Now that’s gone too.

Lets use the 30 hours childcare as an example. You said you don't mean people who are genuine, would you be against them having it extended such as disabled people, carers with disabled children, short term unemployed etc or should it not happen at all?

@GimmieABreakOr3
Wouldn't a fairer way to do it be a request to show that all adults in the household are working and so unable to look after their own children as out earning for them?
If they are at home and not working in paid employment then they are surely able to look after their own children themselves?

Maybe the barrier to finding work is not having affordable childcare.

Quite.

That could include paying for their childcare. Their holiday clubs. Their wraparound care.

Which plenty of working parents are busy complaining about the cost of on this thread.

Maybe, if people can’t plan for the holiday cover you’ll need for your children, and afford it, they shouldn’t have them.

Children should only be born to parents who can stay at home with them at all times, forever, or can afford to get them looked after without bothering the state to help them at all?

Seems fair!

@BringBackCatsEyes
OK then - evidence that they are actively seeking paid employment at least whilst child is in childcare.

I think this is already a requirement for UC when your child turns 1 - starting with work prep etc until they are 3, then evidence of looking for work.

Sorry but I disagree with you. There’s a difference between complaining about the cost of wraparound care and holidays and sitting on your arse all day while you get money from the state to fund your lifestyle/parenting. Also, I think working parents are actually modelling something beneficial to their children. Those are my beliefs!

That’s what I’m saying — funds should be directed to those who absolutely cannot do without it, I.e. disabled, carers etc. As a society, we have to decide what is absolutely necessary to spend on. Our economy in the UK is struggling. If it were doing better, then I’d be all for it, but sadly it’s not and that’s what most people on this thread aren’t considering. It’s all very idealistic, but in practice, it simply wouldn’t work. We do need to prioritise those in current employment, especially those who are net contributors as they are paying tax. Tax which goes towards said benefits and schemes. I’m not trying to suggest they’re somehow superior, but I’m trying to make an argument for balancing the economy as well.

My husband used to work for a company that offered a crèche or discounted nursery/creches I believe. This is excellent for parents. I think more companies need to offer this. We need to think about how to encourage people to get into and stay within the workforce.

Another idea is to start creating more apprenticeships and training for nursery workers. We need the infrastructure there first before increasing the demand. It’s like the classic let’s build a tonne of houses, but not think about local doctor surgeries, hospitals, schools, water supply etc.