To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

Well bwp I think it's a bit chicken -egg IYSWIM. We are in London so the choice seems to be both parents work quite hard or a normal amount or one parents works extremely hard at the expense of almost everything else in their life. I think the first is preferable and better for the parents' relationship and therefore the dc's well being. Sadly these men (and they are all men) are strangers to their dcs.

I think if their dws had gone back to work they wouldn't have been able to be drawn into the long hours culture to the same extent. I also worry for these families long term financial security with everything resting on one highly paid job.

Broken sunglasses
CTC is income related and has nothing to do with childcare. There are many families with two people working and receiving this. It has nothing to do with being a sahp.

I think it is a shame. Yet again we are seeing policies that seem to support very young children having two working parents. I think age 3 is far too young to be in 25hrs of care outside the home. In my opinion there should be more support for SAHPs.

The policies are about encouraging as many adults as possible to be working and to boost the childcare industry. It's good for GDP.

It is, however, perfectly possible to measure and include in home production of goods and services within GDP...

Retropear I get that life is expensive but my heart does not bleed for people on £50K, unless you have about 15 children.

£50 k goes nowhere in London. nowhere.

Vest I agree.

Just what are the benefits for 3 year olds in full time care? Wouldn't it be better to help those families that want a sahp and those 3 year olds that want to be with a parent?

Candy
I was pointing out that this is how society will think if there is more subsidised childcare. No I don't think both parents should be encouraged to work. They either choose to or choose not to.
It's a non issue anyway, because there are no jobs, except maybe in childcare.
Wow, the sahp can be encouraged back to work by providing childcare for others, while theirs are in childcare, how bizarre.

V&A I do find that baffling. Again what sort of job do you think someone can do in 25 hours including travel time. We are hardly talking about cooperate lawyers. 25 hours = 2.5 days in childcare, that's 4.5 days at home. Do you realy think that's too much. This is 3 years not 3 months we are talking about.

Again in what world is 25 hours full time ?

Candy well then perhaps those on £50k joint should lose CB given that they have double the tax threshold,pay less tax,now have help with childcare and free school dinners.

candy, 50k is about 36k after tax. It is quite likely that you could spend 6k a year on commuter costs as does my dh. This means that the person on 50k, is only about 4k better off than the benefit cap of 26k, once work related costs have been taken into account. You can't seriously be telling me that 50k is a kings ransom, particularly for families with more than two children

Vestandknickers- if you think 25 hours a week childcare isn't good for your children then don't use it. No one is suggesting its compulsory. But very many parents use childcare and find their children are just as happy and secure- and for these working parents then its great that there is help.

Yanbu. Much better ways the money could and should be spent. Children of that age do not need to be at nursery

They could set up lots of public sector nurseries to take advantage of the end of the pay freeze for all the public sector workers who for some reason are more worthy than the private sector workers who aren't getting pay rises because labour stuffed up the economy.

Retro I didn't say they shouldn't lose their CB, did I? Just that I can't stand high earners bleating on about their loss. I agree the new CB policy if fucking bonkers but I do not think people on £50k should pay less tax.

ihategeorge I never said it was a huge amount. I think it's a bit gross to be whinging when it's a huge amount compared to the national average.

LOL at all the really defensive people on this thread...

I think it's a great idea. By the time many have a first child aged 3/4 they have a second child needing to go into childcare too. This is a massive crunch point for working parents and I imagine lots of people become SAHP at this point whether they want to or not.

By subsidising the cost further - which, given it's an extension of an existing programme, should be much more straightforward and thus cost effective than other alternative improvements - it will help keep people in work, help people find and afford to take jobs that may not offer contracts of less than, say, 21 hours and release more money into the economy.

candy, the point is that once you've taken account of commuter costs, work clothes and other work expenses, it's not a huge amount. We are in this bracket and we can't afford to buy a house FFS!

morethan You are missing the point. Many women want to work (I know, shock horror!) and this enables them to work because the costs of childcare are less crippling. 10 hours a week will make a difference to some people. Maybe not to you but to some people!

It is a huge amount compared to the national average. Seriously, you seem like an intelligent person, so not sure why you can't see that.

Wishihadabs yes I do think 25 hours is far too much for a 3 year old. It is 2.5 VERY long days or if you are using it Monday to Friday that is 5 hours per day. Children that age need to be with a parent - not farmed off to childcare. I am well aware that those hours do not equate to full time work, but that isn't really the point.

The costs of childcare are crippling not because childcare is per se expensive but because of the particular economic model of UK childcare.

£50 k isn't much more in your pocket than those getting TC,either benefits are too high or the higher tax rate too low.I personally think the higher tax is waaaay too low and £50k in real terms isn't a higher wage(as do labour) sooooo I couldn't give a stuff if you don't like those on £50k losing CB particularly when those on more are keeping it.

I would have respected labour more if they had decided to do something about it.