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.

Labour will lose the next election with policies like this, and we'll be back to Kemi or Nigel's caring vision of the future where hardly any women can afford to work. At the very least it should be on a trial basis where it's measured and we track how many of these parents are in work 12 months on.

That is the cut off for eligibility. That's only if you or your partner were earning more than 100k, so you could in fact be earning 99k each and get free childcare.

I just don't think if youre earning 100k you need state support for childcare. I'd rather my tax went to help poorer members of society.

I get both sides. However it needs to be means tested. Such as giving 10 hours for those job seeking or disabled to allow for appointments, job interviews, etc. If you are being paid benefits that amount it based on any dependents you have, you are being paid to raise your children. Do it properly!

I personally don’t deem giving the children the ‘same’ opportunities as working families a good reason. I could turn this the other way and say that my children are deprived of time with their parents because we have to work! Sorry but as a society we need to stop making excuses for lazy parents. Toilet training, speaking to, playing with, reading with, going to a park, learning manners, name writing, does not cost a penny. Just time. If you can’t give your own child your time to support their development then you aren’t worthy of being a parent.

My husband and myself work full time in average but demanding jobs because we have morals, set a good example to our children, provide for our family that we created and with the aim of a better life style. We also toilet trained both our children at the age of 2, they went to school being able to write their names, speak well, use their manners. Despite the fact we have less time than those that choose not to work or play the system! I am not saying that is everyone on benefits. I myself work in education it’s mostly those children that enter school not toilet trained, with speech and language barriers, don’t even recognise their name. These are the parents that have the one thing their children need, their time.

So someone earning 99k could get £25k of free childcare but someone earning over 100k won’t have access to it? If ever there is an incentive to keep your salary artificially low that is it!

This is our household at the moment and it's so hard that I'm not sure I will make it out the end of it and will just go back to a non-City job anyway, so the few years of £100k+ (which coincided with nursery years) will have resulted in essentially no benefit to us at all.

Our outgoings currently for two children in nursery and a mortgage on an ex-council 2-bed with an hour's commute to work are, drumroll, over £8,000 a month.

Sorry if I don't want to be lectured to by people like my neighbour on benefits getting the IDENTICAL property for free (yes if you have to use your free money to pay for the house it's still a free house) which is the equivalent of literally winning a £1M+ lottery in terms of the financial benefit. Which one of us has been lucky or not in life?

That is how life works. We earn more, we pay more in tax to benefit the country we live in. But we also get to take home much more than most other people working just as hard as us. I'm actually in support of the funded places for all, it benefits the economy. What I do not support is OP, who says she didn't really need the childcare as she was 'responsibile enough' to make sure she had plenty of people at her beck and call to care for her DC whilst she worked complaining life is not fair because she isn't benefitting from something the most vulnerable members of society will benefit from.

I think that provision already existed for children identified as being at risk of falling behind and has done since the last Labour government.

I suspect with cuts to surestart/home start and HV teams and everything else a lot of children that might have received support from 2years may be getting missed now.

I wonder whether it might be a better use of money (or at least perceived as more fair) to bring back sure start properly, increase HV teams with more thorough developmental checks and then provide childcare support based on that. Less cost effective I’d imagine but might stop people complaining about things not being fair.

I’d imagine this all has quite a lot of savings both cost and otherwise further down the line. But that’s the sort of long term thinking that gets frowned upon.

Honestly you have my sympathy. I promise it does pass (i am 15 years past that point now) but it is utterly demoralising while you are going through it. Just remember the long term gain even when you feel down. I cried a lot during that period so I get it.

Could they argue they are SAHM's and that this is a job?

Any government funded childcare (and schooling) is unfair on those who don’t have kids tho. NHS funding is unfair because I rarely get sick and would have been way better off under a US-style insurance system. Why should I pay towards upkeep of cycle paths when I don’t cycle? Why should my gran contribute towards taxi licensing when she hasn’t ever been in a taxi?

We can all play the game where we don’t want government to fund things for others. Alternatively, we can accept we’re all part of a society and we all contribute towards things which are best for society as a whole, even if we don’t personally benefit.

If someone wants to keep their wages artificially low to get cheaper childcare then they are entitled to do this.

I compressed my hours as well as using nursery as keeping my career on track was important to me but spending time with my children while young was too. Which was handy because I am now a single mum, managing a career and 2 children but I'm financially stable.

Annnnd, as a citizen as part of this society, I also feel like I should get a say on what my taxes go towards…

Extending childcare hours isn’t about giving parents a break. The goal is to reach children who statistically are less likely to be prepared for school.

That doesn’t mean that every parent who works is good and every parent who doesn’t is bad. We are talking about general population trends on broad socioeconomic measures.

Early intervention benefits at risk children. Fewer unprepared children mean better classroom experiences for all students. Better educated students benefit society.

But so many people on here argue that being a SAHM is "best" for children? I doubt those people would agree to going out to work?

You do. When you vote you are giving the thumbs up to policies of that party.

Calling it a tantrum is very provoking. It is not a tantrum, it is a discussion board. Thank you.

@maxslice and you sound rude and have nothing worthy to add to this debate, so don’t comment.

The goal is actually so it’s easier for unemployed parents of nursery age children to GET jobs. I was one of them good ole pieces of shit once (jobless had dc at 16) and had to wait until dc was in school to get a job.

It’s hard to find an employer willing to wait around while you sort out finding and signing up for a nursery that takes 30 hours.

Which you do. Through the voting system. Currently we have a Labour government so they are going to (unsurprisingly) put in place some more support for low income households. When we had a different government my priorities were sidelined.

Also, plenty of people agree with me, so are they petty and jealous too? Is it petty and jealous to highlight injustice and inequality?

Bet you’d be the first to cry about a policy affecting you or your family…

You are sounding a bit daft here. It is a discussion forum so you don’t get to police tone and you don’t get to decide who comments.

Exactly. So what is your point? Mumsnet is an internet forum where we can discuss many things……….

I absolutely can when people are calling me petty and jealous, I’m sure that goes against Mumsnet guidelines. It’s a personal attack and nothing to do with the discussion.

This.

my nursery fees are just about to get higher if this happens because we are already subsidising the inadequate funding from the government. Some nurseries have doubled in day rates for non qualifying funding. It’s scandalous.

Not up to you, chickie.