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.

completely agree and I thought the entire reason the hours were introduced was to get parents back into work. They need to rethink the 100k threshold as it really isn’t much especially if you’re living in London and have a family with a mortgage.

Personal attacks should be reported to MN so they can be deleted.

It does sound petty and jealous when well-off people (ie those in the top 5% of earners) complain that children of the poorer 5% are going to get extra support. As I said, I’m a higher (tho not top) rate payer with no kids and excellent health. I pay more in tax than I get back, and by a decent margin. I’ve no skin in the game on this one. But it is (objectively) better for society if children from the poorest households get lots of support in the early years. The same is simply not needed for children of the well-off.

I’d prefer it people stuck to the discussion of the thread and didn’t personally attack or insult me for having my own views. I haven’t personally insulted or attacked anyone on this thread. Anyone who feels the need to provoke or insult will be reported.

so it’s only the nursery’s job to bring up the kids? Lots of stats also show better outcomes for kids usually exhibit when there’s more engaged parenting going on.

So I'm going to sound judgemental here.
My opinion is it should be universal. If parents choose (choose being the word) to not work because quite frankly they can't be arsed and are quite happy on their benefits and just want to get through life are they really going to be putting effort into out of nursery teaching? I honestly based on the people I know or have known don't think so.

I bet in the long run this would pay for itself. Friend is a year 1 teacher in a mixed area and she said it’s almost impossible to stop the rot even by age 5 or 6. It’s clear by year 1 which kids have been read to, chatted to, engaged with, challenged, had standards of behaviour applied at home etc. Whilst pre school will never replace attentive and interested parents, it’s a damn site better than kids turning up to school barely able to go to the toilet and hold a pencil. If it stopped more kids failing at education at the first few hurdles I bet long term it would impact the welfare budget.

Not everyone who has opposing views is a top 5% earner though. There are plenty of people in between who don’t qualify for any bit of help or support, it becomes a bit of a trap, and it’s unjust. They’re forced to work to pay extortionate fees just to keep things afloat in their households.

I actually do strongly object to it being universal. I don’t mind paying childcare / early years for those who can’t afford it or children who really need it but I’m not sure why I should contribute for those who earn double my salary and kids who go on better holidays than I do? I’m already paying towards schooling for those who choose a state school place.

I wouldnt be happy having to pay to child mind the kids of those sat on their arses on Tiktok all day

But some parents just don’t care. And unless you are going to enforce sterilisation they will keep having kids. And we can either continue the cycle of kids being born into poverty and inter generational unemployment, or we can try and do something about it. And early years education is a good way to try and fix that. It’s almost too late by 5. The gap between the kids with parents who care about education and the kids with parents who don’t is already too wide.

Top 5% means earning over £80k. So anyone who is over the 100k threshold is well into the top 5%. The problem is that many people don’t see themselves as high earners because they’re surrounded by other high earners and choose to take out super high mortgages or have a lifestyle half the country couldn’t even dream of.

Do you realise how much it is to put a child in nursery 5 days a week?

Of course it isn't the nursery's job to bring up children. It's a way that the government know is effective due to the current 15 free hours in place for those who don't or can't work.

yes but THIS labour govt are taking the absolute Michael. It’s benefits street

Correct of course

But all kids should get it
You’ve noted the increase in tax payments with more working as a benefit to increased childcare
My post upthread noted millions in increased taxes to the economy if the £100k cliff edge is removed

So the same policy with no exemptions for anyone is a win win for
all children,
all families and
the tax payer

But surely those people aren’t going to take up the provision of the free childcare. If they aren’t the sort of people to care about education, why would they feel the need to put their children into a nursery setting to get it. Why would they?

Do you know people who have chosen not to work and are claiming benefits?
Do you know how they achieved this?
During my short period of unemployment I was treated like work-shy, money grabbing scum. I have never been made to feel so worthless.
I wanted to work. I couldn't get any sort of benefit (they fell over themselves to tell me this). If I had had a young child during that period, having some free childcare would really have helped.

It’s not about the parents it’s about all children having equal opportunity.

Some won't but some will if it is free.

But why?

Tell me you know nothing about the tax cliff edge without telling me you know nothing about the tax cliff edge. In London and the SE specifically, a household earning £80k and above doesn’t actually go very far, when you factor in housing costs, student loans, bills and cost of living. They lose the childcare funding, and pay thousands a month for childcare/early years education to maintain their jobs/careers. It plunges working families into financial difficulty. But of course, you have no sympathy for the working and tax contributing population that fund most of these benefits.

Why what?

Why would they put their children into nursery if they didn’t need it and didn’t value the educational benefits?

Speaking specifically of my non-working SIL - so she can spend less time with her kids.

I don't know. It clearly has worked though or I doubt extending it from 15 hours to 30 hours would be a consideration.