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.

We are in the 5th decile for house hold income Poem. I could argue, why are we losing our child benefit when families in higher income deciles, are keeping theirs?

It's about time we got something back

I just did that income decile thing on the IFS and website and apparently we are richer than 44% of households, which means 56% of household are wealthier. I wonder how many in that 56% are keeping their CB? Would be interesting to know.

ihategeorge I would agree with you that it is grossly unfair to means test a benefit in the way it has been done with CB and that if it is given it should be done in a fair way. But if you were to say that you needed it then I would question that.

I need it as much as any other family who earns the same as us or who is richer than us and still receiving it. £200 a month is a lot to lose. I am still smarting and will remain bitter about it until something is done to address the issue.

BadlyWrittenPoem you are at it again. Should government policy be all about you?

This is DEFINITELY a vote-spinner and it seems like something temporary. I can imagine nurseries expanding to assist with provision and then 2 years later the policy changing.

At the end of the day I think it's just the govt thinking - how can we get more taxes from the public? We need more of them working and working now! Stats from 2012 show that almost 40% of women with children ages 0-4 are 'economically inactive' - therefore no job at all. So it's a pretty big motivator to get them working. Care for older children age 5-10 is probably less important for the government as only 20% of moms with kids age 5-10 are economically inactive.

I smell a rat! Hard not to be cynical about our govt. I also think if we're going to go on about austerity they really need to stop throwing money about....

ELT, no it shouldn't but I thought people were professing this to be about "need" and I am not seeing the "need" here.

I am not seeing the need for people on higher incomes than us either, but apparently that's ok Level playing field please.

BWP Some families (women in particular) need to work but can not afford to work because childcare is prohibitively expensive, that is a need. The need to work, the need to afford childcare.

ihategeorge - I don't think it's okay.

ihategeorgeosborne the cb situation is very unfair. I wonder if labour will deal with this? We know the condems won't, it's their creation.

(On the child benefit loss plenty of single mothers who work full time have lost all their child benefit. I have and single parents with normal full time jobs perhaps including 2 hours commute a day need about 50 hours of full time child care for about 48 weeks of the year. 25 hours which does not even cover 25 hours in anything decent is not likely to be a big help and many need it for their under 1s, never mind 4 year olds)

ELT but why do they need to work? Are you seriously saying that lots of people can't afford to feed, clothe etc their children without both a dual income and subsidised childcare? Children would actually be starving if either one parent stayed at home or the government didn't subsidise their childcare to enable them to both go out to work?

Elizabeta

There are a lot of people in this country who need things, if the money went to the real needy, then I doubt if anybody would object to more subsidised child care. I'm sorry but its hardly a need to work if your wage only covers basic child care costs.
What are these people doing now who are needing to work, but can't. Are they starving?, Homeless?

I'm not seeing the need of people on £80k + joint - unless they want more money for holidays and luxuries.Which beggars the question why should the tax payer fund it?

Regarding different levels of early years ed/ childcare for diff children depending on family circumstances Horry - sure I can see why there is extra funding for 2 year olds from poorer backgrounds, but with this new initiative there'd be more provision (an extra 10 hours) for better off children (those with working parents) and that doesn't seem so good.

• Just another factor to consider ?

Honest question: Why should households where one person does not work (i.e. not at all - not part time, not full time) receive any free childcare? Surely the kids can stay at home with the parent? Obvious exemptions aside (e.g. the STHP is caring for a relative or child with severe special needs) - I'm curious to understand the arguments.

Completely agree with the suggestion upthread about making registered childcare tax deductible. That would help parents enormously

All 2 year olds benefit from a bit of pre - school.Many sahp may want to study before they go back,are carers etc.

Well Lalunya, firstly because childcare is also early years education for the child, and this has been shown to have huge benefits to the child and society in terms of preparing them for the rest of life, for school, and for their future employment one day. So, the 15 hours are currently provided free (or should be) to every 3 year old + (And some 2 year olds)

Secondly I think if you give women that space in their lives from having their DC at nursery/ pre-school you will find that many begin to do amazing things with that space and time you've created for them. For many this will include beginning to look for work, going to interviews, and finally getting a job! Even for those that do not return to work, some may do further training or voluntary work in the community, some may just cope better with the tasks of parenthood or other family responsibilities, or have more time and energy for looking after their younger children.

I think you have to trust women. Countries with more developed thinking and better approaches to early years education and childcare such as Scandinavia and Holland have seen many benefits to their societies, both economically and socially.

Certain posters on this thread are repeating the pattern of "if I can't have it, why should others?" and it's so petty. Again, you were perfectly happy to take what was being handed out. I know, I know you're going to tell me that 2 people earning a total of £80K receiving CB is unfair which we have all agreed (the policy is bonkers) but seeing people on £50K whinging about not having money from the government is embarrassing to watch.

Juggling I quite agree. If you search my posts upthread you'll see that's what I said yesterday Far better to expand the 2+ funding to more children than increase hours for already-eligible 3+.

juggling and retropear - thanks for this - both points make sense. Especially the one about going back into training or education and volunteering. I hadn't realised the educational aspect of childcare for 3+ - year-olds, which sounds like a key point. I'm originally from one of those "more developed countries" you mention juggling, and life with children there is a completely different story. It allows women to stay off work longer when the baby is born (with full pay of course), and then enables them to return to work by either providing free childcare or (increasingly more often) by having small nurseries at workplaces.

On a different note - are there free childcare hours for under-3-year-olds?

Thanks again for giving me some backgrounds to the argument.

Lalunya many other European countries (including Italy, which hasn't exactly been swimming in gold for years) offer free places in nursery schools for children of 3 yr old (actually it is now from 2.5 because it is cheaper than nurseries for the under 3) regardless of their parents work arrangements.
Of course children of single working parents, or with both working parents have priority, but they try to allocate each child.
I am not saying it is the fairest of system, but it works, and I still have to meet anyone who wouldn't want their kids to attend nursery school here.