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.

Parents ‘on benefits’ can already claim the 30 hours if working like anyone who’s not on benefits so what is this thread even about OP? Surely people understand by now that a massive amount of benefit claimants work. Also non working parents can already get some free hours past a certain age.

I think most UC claimants are in work, which is an issue of itself, but my point was just that benefits (whether you’re working or not) entitle you to 85% funded childcare which in most cases is going to be cheaper for the parents than the 30 hours, which are often still fairly costly. Unless the idea is the 30 hours and 85% off?

thats not what the article says, and I disagree too, I don’t see it as education, I see it as childcare.

Read the article I shared

This.

Why would I read it? ‘Benefit claimants’ already get the hours because the majority of them work, so it’s clearly not worth reading.

Also you didn’t share an article, you put a picture on. If you are the writer looking for clicks you’d be better off sharing the actual link

This is. Good point as there aren't enough places right now.

You resent giving a better start to kids of non-working parents though. You want those children to be disadvantaged educationally and socially.

You want the lives of children to be unequal.

the article is an opinion piece, so will use the language that suits their opinion
hence why the non working parents go swishing off to do errands and shopping whilst she raised their children for them.

How do you expect people to contribute if they can’t get a job because they can’t get childcare?

oh look @gimmieabreakOr3, mine says early years education, I guess it's not child care then!

Pp was agreeing with the point if non working parents are given it why not those on higher salaries
Why should just some be disadvantaged

If we take the premiss it’s all about the kids
then why only some kids

We are stuck in the middle.
I work a small amount of hours due to 2 year old , husband is full time. We can't get the 30 hour so I can't move to a job with more hours. A mum on the school run has a girl same age and she gets the 30 hours because she doesn't work at all.
I'm not bashing her but however they work it out isn't fair

Please, this is no time for logic or pragmatism!

If you worked more hours you’d get the 30 hours, you are choosing not to. If you want to work more hours then work them and use childcare more.

the funding isn’t just to benefit parents it’s to benefit children. We should not be punishing children because their parents are unemployed. Nurseries and childcare settings save abused children’s lives the more professional eyes on children the better. Not that I’m saying people on benefits hurt their kids it’s just good for ALL kids to be kept an eye on. Also how do you propose an unemployed person gets a job with no childcare? If they have childcare in place they are much more employable!

Agree
but that's not what Philipson is saying

Perhaps it should be a caveat to the policy
Now that would be an excellent idea

This proposal really pisses me off actually. We never got 30 (subsidised not free) hours as my husband was over the threshold. We did get 15 hours and I was grateful for it. I was working 3 days and then 4 days a week when my children were in their final year of nursery. I cherished my days at home. I must have spent nearly £90k on nursery fees because I needed nursery to work. Why the hell should someone get 30 hours for not working when I didn’t get 30 for working. When mine were young the baby room fees were much higher to partly subsidise the cheaper rates from 3. I think a universal provision of 15 should give kids enough social time and potentially look at higher provision for cases where parents can’t look after their kids properly.

That's a separate matter.

European system of early years provision plus European tax system should definitely be considered.

Good. They can now all job seek/ attend interviews etc . Or they need it because of the reason for being on UC and it benefits the child.

Because the main barrier to unemployed people putting kids in childcare is the price. People who are high earners do not have that same barrier. People earning that amount of money very much have the choice to put them in pre school etc.

It’s not a seperate matter
If we are discussing what Philipson is proposing
it’s a point of relevant discussion

I can't read that text to se the detail but you seem to be equating 'on benefits' with 'not working' and that's not always the case - there are plenty of working people claiming UC and PIP, for example, and those claiming JSA will be actively looking for work.

“Being on benefits” is not synonymous with being unemployed. Many employed people in low wage jobs get universal credit etc. I got tax credits for many years whilst being a working single parent. Paying for my childrens nursery and before/afterschool clubs enabled me to stay in work.

You want other parents and children to suffer because you did? You seem lovely.