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.

Why am I so sure, because people are already being pushed into jobs that they don't want, by ATOS, etc, to meet targets, - once there is 25 hours free childcare in place, it will be easier to do that and for longer hours, bearing in mind at the moment, the job centre (I am told by people who have been there) don't take travelling time into account when deciding if a job is suitable.

Do you really trust any of the major political parties??

i had no idea CB was removed from all SAHP, everywhere! that is terrible! i thought it was lost only if your partner earned above a certain (fabulously well to do) threshhold

they could always go and live in an abandoned pit mine, housing stock v cheap there

Do you really trust any of the major political parties?

Anyone who trusts any of the major political parties needs their head read. Anyone who falls for the incentives and/or self-congratulates because their lifestyle model meets the current political ideal is beyond naïve.

I guess I think it will be used to lower the age at which the govt expects a parent to work, so instead of the current 5, it will become 3 in the long run, and parents will face - use the free 25 hours or lose your benefits.

and FWIW it wont affect me as I don't get any, doesn't mean I cannot see the warning signs though.

... And of course for the people who don't want balance, there is absolutely the option to do things another way. If the model of one partner focusing all out on career and the other focusing all out on childcare and home suits a couple then fine. But some people do want balance - not half mast, or a compromise, but simply focusing well on more than one thing

I am sure you are right, namechange. But I don't disagree with this, providing the 25 hours are education, not childcare. Staying at home with a parent on benefits until you are 5 is not a good start to life.

It is predictable that these discussions always end up in war of words between working parents and SAHP. I agree with much of what annie and janey have said, esp in relation to women having to drop out of their careers. But then I also have some sympathy with the view that SAHP feel unvalued and their contribution unrecognised.

I have just worked out that based on the CB I receive, if I continue to receive this at the same rate until the youngest child is 18 the total will be 32,450. Implementing a small social wage (or call it what you will) in recognition of the contribution and the hardship sometimes faced by women who would like to stay home until their child starts school, could actually be cheaper.

So rather than pay Mrs Smith something in the region of 32,000 ( it will be more allowing for inflation) over 18 years, it would be better to pay ONLY SAHPs something in the region of £90 per week (irrespective of how many children, although it really only encourages you to have 2!) for a maximum of 6-7 years. This would help to extend and validate the choice to stay home. (note its a choice not an obligation) But I would remove the 15 hrs a free nursery care from those families with a SAHP and this would allow a far more generous subsidy of childcare to working parents.

It also recognises that most parents do not need the state peering over their shoulders. It seems that the state does indeed not trust parents to raise children. The initial idea of the free hrs was to iron out some of the developmental differences, thus scooping up disadvantaged children. This hasn't worked, abusive neglectful parents seldom go out of their way to make their child known to childcare professionals in any setting incl childcare.

Perfectstorm- that's what I said: bringing up children well has enormous social worth. Not simply having children per se. I am all for recognition (though not remuneration) of good parenting ... But that's a separate issue from whether mum, dad, neither or both, work.

No, Janey, that is not what you said. What you have repeatedly said is that women who care for children do not work. Unless, presumably, you are paying them to care for yours? Or do they do that for nothing - in which case you have no childcare costs, right?

Children cost their parents money to care for, either childcare or salary sacrifice. The tax system should recognise this, in my view. Whining that only WOTH mothers (ie you) should benefit from tax breaks is, ironically, exactly the type of egocentric me-me-meism you are so indignantly accusing those opposed to free childcare for working parents of.

The tax system shouldn't discriminate against either form of childcare; both have merit. Where a family pay tax there should be an ability to offset childcare costs from the family's overall contributions; either by aggregating tax-free allowances so a SAHP's could be added to the working parent's, or by allowing childcare costs to be tax deductible for WOTH parents. I really don't see why people are so determined that it should be one or the other - except that they want their own choices validated more generally, and the other deemed somehow less valuable or worthwhile.

How fortunate that there are worker bees like you, janey68, to supply the labour for the focused, striving value creators of this world

I don't want more money ploughed into childcare, I really don't. I want it put into looking after the vulnerable in society. You'd have to live on a completely different planet to not be aware of how the sick and disabled are being treated in this 'civilised' society. If there is money for free school meals from one party and another 10 hours childcare from another, it could bed put to better use imo.

If they want more people working they should be looking at getting more jobs for younger people, which I understand Labour are proposing, because if you are a school leaver or a graduate you have an incredibly slim chance of finding a job.

"Simple, scrap child benefit and only pay the social wage to SAHP for a limited time say 6-7yrs, Progressive taxation and legislation to tackle the low wage economy. If more workers earn a larger share of the wealth or GDP then more money will be taken in tax by the treasury. It is the businesses, share holders, hedge funds, banks, global corporates that are bleeding us dry both in terms of low wages and tax avoidance.

By only paying a benefit for a limited time, a time when it is most beneficial also has the added effect of making it both desirable to go back to work and sensible financially but only when the children are older/in school."

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the suggestion, how does paying it for 6-7 years provide a SAHP until the children are older/in school? Assuming 7 years, by that system I would be going back to work when my second and third children are 21months and two months. As a SAHP I do not expect to get anything for being a SAHP but equally I don't see why a family with both parents going out to work should be getting anything extra either. I take CB/CTC because I qualify and they are useful though I don't need them; I don't take free education or free childcare because on principle I choose to do those things myself. I don't see why the government should be trying to "help" people either to be able to go to work or to be able to be a SAHP.

Bonsoir
Do stop -its getting embarrassing watching you desperately scrabbling to put down others at every opportunity

I guess I think it will be used to lower the age at which the govt expects a parent to work, so instead of the current 5, it will become 3 in the long run, and parents will face - use the free 25 hours or lose your benefits.

Frankly, I don't really see any problem with that. Kids start school at 4 these days. They get nursery provision at 3. The state is, ironically, already paying some people to stay at home... just not families with a tax contribution. Why would someone with children at school fulltime want to rely on the state 100%? You can already work part-time and still receive benefits to top that salary up to higher than it would be were you not in work at all, so if the kids are part-time educated anyway, why not look for something you can combine with that? And realistically, all the state can require is that you be actively seeking/available for work, as opposed to exempt from that requirement due to family responsibilities. In a world where there just aren't enough jobs, you can't force employment, anyway. I do think educational opportunities - for the parent - should also be in the mix, though. Encouraging aspirations for all the family could only be a good thing.

It used to be that parents on benefits with kids didn't need to work until they were 12. It does seem reasonable that that limit was reduced. I don't think mothers of tiny children should be forced into minimum wage jobs and their kids sent to whatever childcare they can find before they can properly communicate, but after 3 I don't see a huge problem or detriment to the kids or family as a whole, if lifelong unemployment is the alternative. In fact, the opposite. And 25 hours of free childcare could really help some people break out of the poverty trap, couldn't it? (Not sure of the figures on that, but I would imagine so.)

I think the free childcare suggestion is a good one, really. It benefits every working parent and I hope it materialises.

Badly
On many threads there are women who would really like to WOH but have to give up their jobs because they simply cannot afford childcare or it doesn't pay them anything after childcare, travel etc

This policy doesn't relate to those who can afford to live on one wage and want to SAH .

I really find it baffling that making it easier for women who want to work to achieve that is seen as a bad thing .
It gives them choice and surely that is what equality is about.

Hunfriend - read the thread before deciding who is trying to gain the upper hand here

BadlyWrittenPoem if you don't need CB and CTC you can always send it back. To make a virtue out of taking tax payers money that you have no need of laughable.

BWP: I was with you right up until you disclosed the fact that you take take CB/CTC despite not needing them. Also, let's be clear, the education and childcare are (like the CB/CTC) far from "Free"

Governments need/strive for "full employment" The benefits of stay-at-home parenthood are altogether less tangible/immediate (though I accept they are there).

But that's exactly what is happening trying to force people into work when there isn't enough. And it's into poor jobs with no prospects a lot of the time.

It's social engineering through the back door.

It won't only be used to help people who want to work - it will be used to force those who want to be with their children while they are young into work.

I don't think at 3 all children are ready for full tines school at all. They all develop at different paces.

And as for break out of the poverty trap that's not going to happen. There are too many people who have never faced the reality of juggling 18 hours, with no car and nursery.

Eventually it will become a stick to beat people over the head. It won't promote choice it will decimate it

by that system I would be going back to work when my second and third children are 21months and two months. As a SAHP I do not expect to get anything for being a SAHP but equally I don't see why a family with both parents going out to work should be getting anything extra either. I take CB/CTC because I qualify and they are useful though I don't need them

But you have chosen to accept money for having had several children. You have quite blatantly expected people to bank roll your choices. The real reason you don't like my idea is that you personally would be worse off. Don't need the money? isnt quite the same as don't desire the money?

But that's exactly what is happening trying to force people into work when there isn't enough. And it's into poor jobs with no prospects a lot of the time

I agree, however I would argue that no one is above doing the work that needs doing. What needs tackling is the rate of pay for these "shit" jobs. Someone has to do this work.

Bonsoir, I have read the full thread and frankly you have said some unpleasant things. Including suggesting I should be dissapointed with my life. If you're going to be bullish in your posts, expect some posters to pull you up for it.

There is plenty of evidence out there to say children flourish in informal settings. Look at Finland. Removing children from their parents care isn't the answer to everything.

I find most of this thread blinkered - in isolation this would be great but not when you consider the overall context.

My eldest went 8-6 to school - was just awful - in hindsight I never saw him. Home bath bed - we had the weekend's and that was it.

I think this is a great idea, it will really help families with the work/childcare balance. I currently work 3 full days a week and pay the childcare costs which doesn't leave much spare for fun things to do on my days off. It would definately ease the pressure on most families.