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.

How is it punishing children when what I’m arguing is that it should be available to all children and not excluding others or penalising working parents? It should be a blanket thing.

No it’s not fair but then when do working people ever get treated fairly.

No forcing people to work if they are unable to and forcing them to put it in state-run childcare is absolutely extreme communism.

It’s the obvious one.

Yes, if I was on benefits I could have more time with my son.

But I wouldn’t have the house I do, the cars we drive, the holidays, the clothes. The reason we work for a living.

The fact is there’s many people, not me or I’m assuming you, who work just as hard as us, and have substantially less. Like it or not that makes you privileged, comparatively.

I can think of many reasons why all kids should get 30hrs.

Interesting article looking at the benefit of dropping the financial cliff
edge from AJ Bell

‘ Some parents are currently better off working less or diverting money toward pensions to reduce their adjusted net income

• Analysis from the Centre for British Progress finds changing the broken system could raise more in new tax revenue than the cost of the extra childcare

• HM Treasury could net between £130 million and £425 million by 2029/30, depending on the extent to which parents change their behaviour

“Earning £100,000 used to be a landmark career moment, but it has become the threshold at which you face eye-watering tax rates and parents lose thousands in childcare support.

“It’s incredibly difficult to defend a policy where some parents will take home less money for working more. The cliff edge has faced universal criticism, even becoming a trending topic on TikTok and other social media sites, so it’s no surprise Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said she wants to simplify the system in an interview with the FT this week.

“Tinkering with a tax system that is already creaking and adding more complexity is not answer. The simplest solution is to remove the cliff edge altogether and new analysis indicates that it would be a financial win for the government too.

“Although it may not appeal to some backbenchers at first glance, the numbers are compelling. Abolishing the cliff edge could add at least £130 million to the government’s coffers by 2029/30, even after the cost of handing extra childcare benefits to higher earning families is factored in, according to forecasts from the Centre for British Progress.

They argue that is a conservative estimate and could end up much higher, especially if the cliff edge were instead replaced with a different tax.

“That boost for the taxman is down to an anticipated windfall in income tax receipts from parents accepting promotions or diverting less into pensions, which would exceed the cost of extending childcare support to high earning families.”

The cliff edge problem
“AJ Bell analysis shows a family with two young children currently loses almost £30,000 in childcare funding if they’re ineligible for child benefit, tax free childcare and the free hours scheme.
“The main breadwinner in a family of two young children aged 9 months and 2 years old would need to see their income increase to around £156,000 before the family got back to the same total disposable income as when they were earning £99,000.
“Parents might be able to re-arrange their finances to side-step the penalty by making modest pension contributions. This can improve their overall financial position as they regain lost childcare support and boost their retirement pots.
“It all comes down to something the taxman calls ‘adjusted net income’.
Adjusted net income and pension contributions
“Families trying to work out how their earnings might impact access to childcare subsidies and child benefit should start by working out their individual ‘adjusted net incomes’.

“Despite the name, ‘adjusted net income’ refers to all income that would be subject to tax, less certain reliefs. So not just earnings, but income from investments, savings and property too.
“If a parent has adjusted net income of over £100,000 for a tax year, then their family will lose the following childcare offers*:

• all entitlement to tax-free childcare, worth up to £2,000 per child per year
• all of the 30 hours funded term time childcare for 9-month to 3-year-old children
• half of the 30 hours for children aged between three and four.

“Parents over the earnings limit will only be entitled to the universal 15 funded hours in term time for three and four year olds. “As well as losing access to childcare subsidy schemes, their tax-free personal allowance starts to reduce too. ‘

This is essentially using “free childcare” in place of the old sure start centres. Those centres made a massive difference and improved long term outcomes of children in poor areas even those who never actually attended. Cutting them was the worst decision Cameron made (even worse than Brexit imo). So I’m a huge fan of any new initiative that helps children / families from poorer backgrounds get support from child development professionals. Provided (of course) the parents want that.

I’m a higher rate tax payer with no kids if that matters. We’re a rich country, of course we can afford it. (Also, on a cynical note, it’s generally cheaper to help kids become productive adults than it is to deal with the consequences of unproductive adults.)

Who is forcing them to? If they don’t want to then they can live off their partner’s income.

I love how on threads like this, the most common argument is quit and go on benefits.

completely devoid of nuance or critical thought. It has to be extreme and inflammatory. Have you actually reflected on any of the points I made?

It’s not a race to the bottom. The system needs to be fair.

Even the people who think this would be a good idea, give children a more level start in life etc... can you see there is no money for this? How would it be funded? Yet more taxation?

There are so many policies that can improve kids' lives. But we cannot pursue them all, because we do not have the money. We actually cannot pursue many at all at this point.

At best, this is a "nice to have" idea. Not one that taxation should go on with the state of the UK economy currently.

And you think disabled people and carers do

Just make it universal, like school provision.
Yes the feckless then benefit but at least their kids are exposed to decent values and potty training.

Exactly… Labour are idealistic with all these proposed policies and ideas but the reality is they are just not financially viable anyway!

What’s with all this potty training speak? That should be coming from the parents surely……..

OP is saying she wants it extending to high earners too though, so how does that work? Where does that money come from? Do high earners then get taxed more to fund themselves?

I know many people on benefits, because their kids are profoundly disabled and they can’t attend meetings every week and hold down a job.

Or because their kid is 15 and doesn’t sleep, so they don’t have the time or energy to work on a reliable or sustained basis.

Lots of reasons, not all of them being feckless and lazy.

Their kids, or kids in poverty, don’t deserve to access less because their parents are out of work.

I have absolutely no issue with making 30hrs universally available. Zero.

It might not be a race to the bottom, you’re right, but not everyone can make it to the next rung of the ladder, and their kids don’t deserve less because of that. We’ve got to stop punching down.

No - I am saying if they want to bring this in, it needs to be fair to all. However, on a separate point, it’s not feasible anyway!

I don’t know why you’re getting so personal or sensitive on this. I simply said it needs to be fair for all.

This is the reason why they’re doing it I believe.

I was one of them regular ole pieces of shit that everyone hates(no job, had kid at 16) and had to wait until dc was in school to properly get a job. You cannot except employers to wait around while you sort out finding a nursery that takes 30 hours at the last minute

I don’t think anyone is saying they have a problem with universal free childcare. Seems people are broadly supportive of that. What they object to is some people (like me) working and paying out their their entire salary in childcare fees so working for nothing for about 2 years but some people are being given benefits to stay at home with their children And have nursery fees paid. It doesn’t seem fair at all.

I’m late to the thread but I am in support of this.

I think it would remove a barrier of getting people (predominantly women) back into work.

With the current scheme if someone out of work caring for children wanted to get a job they’d need to arrange a job for the start of a school term, otherwise they’d have to pay the full rate for the time before the funded hours kick in which would be unaffordable for many.

If someone wanted to take on very part time work or a zero hours contract that also causes difficulties because to qualify for the hours you have to work the equivalent of 16 hours a week minimum wage.

Its very chicken and egg, a lot of people wouldn’t be able to afford to work because of the childcare costs and the free hours really help with that.

Overall the policy will benefit women and children which I can’t see as a bad thing.

I also think it should be extended to include people who earn over 100k, I think that policy makes it harder for women to be part of the work force too.

@ToKittyornottoKitty I think the logic there is more that high income earners are effectively left being the only ones paying full whack for nursery. So you have the theme of Britain punishing or at least not rewarding those people who work hard and pay high taxes regardless. 100k in Britain isn't a mountain of gold these days.

I think it's great. It means that job seekers will be able to attend job interviews and work immediately, it will increase attainment for poorer children and level the playing field.

People on over 100k don't need 30 free hours.

Who almost always funds these vote winning schemes? It will only get worse too.

If you look at my post upthread
it would raise more in taxes than the cost of the childcare

Why not though? There are already so many reasons why the £100k barrier is creating perverse economic incentives. I think this would be the final nail in the coffin for people just saying ‘fuck it why bother’