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.

Anatochan 'Just because parents get so much less over here, doesn't mean we have to accept it's inevitable!'

I expect you'd expect the same treatment as those on joint incomes of 100k though.

You being one of them Candy.

Nurseries are not free in France from 2.5. School taught by primary teachers in classes of 30 is free from the September of the calendar year a DC turns 3. School with same timetable until DC are 11.

Ok Bonoir personally I am happier and more productive at work if I'm not there for 50+ hours a week. I am also healthier as I have both the time and energy to exercise and cook nutritious food. I am a better parent for having a career and other sources of self esteem. My DH feels the same. Studies have suggested that 28 hours a week is optimal for both happiness and fulfilment.I wonder what the blood pressure or life expectancy is like for those working 60+ hours a week.

"Two healthy wages= two people working damn hard
One healthy wage = one person working damn hard

(And of course in both cases if the people are parents they are working damn hard doing the stuff all parents do too)"

So if a family has one wage then only one of them is working hard? While the other is doing what? If the people paid to look after the dual income family's children are working then what are the SAHP's doing when they look after their children?

Don't be ridiculous retro of course I wouldn't, because we wouldn't be on a joint income. Only one person in the household would be earning

Lucky you to have that choice. Proper career jobs with responsibility just don't exist at under 60 h per week where I live. Many jobs are that plus a lot of overseas travel - my DD's BF's mum travels internationally for weeks at a time. I would hate that.

I have done it (DH SAH for 2 years) I weighed 10kg more. The dcs also prefer the present set up.

"You should do motivational speeches to people living in poverty! Oh and I assume you refused child benefit?"
Allegedly I do live in poverty. As stated earlier, yes I do claim CB but I don't claim state paid for childcare or education. The money is used exclusively on my children and benefits them so why would I turn it down just because they wouldn't starve if I didn't claim it?

I thought we were talking about dual income families anyway so they are not living in "poverty". I was talking about people with much higher incomes.

Well then you're off you're rocker and I suspect if you actually experienced having a family on £50k single without a double tax threshold and paying the higher tax band losing CB to a family on 80/100k with a double threshold and help with childcare would grate a tad.

If it didn't then don't expect everybody else to be so pious- you don't get to tell Joe public how to feel.

Bonsoir, tbh these seem to me like rather specious distinctions - I believe the official guidelines are that children can attend from 2 if there are available spaces (which does happen, in my experience). But does it make that big of a difference to my point anyway?

and for our purpose, what's the difference between "primary school" for a 3-year-old, and "nursery" for a 3-year-old? it's free childcare, no matter what form the state prefers to give it.

(although I'll admit, only knowing the French system, I'm curious to hear about the differences, out of curiosity)

I cannot believe that seemingly intelligent adults can't manage their finances well enough to manage on one income and actually choose to have children who they say they couldn't afford to feed without government help you BadlyWrittenPoem are in receipt of handouts which you say you don't need. The hypocrisy and selfishness of denying other people the choice to work or the choice to have children, staggering. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you don't get the last say on who should and shouldn't have children.

Sorry haven't read all the thread, this has probably already been said.

IMO it's a good idea. I think those in lower paid jobs will feel more of a benefit from the reduction in childcare costs. i.e. 10 hours extra free will be a greater % saving of their income.

BadlyWrittenPoem if you are in the lowest decile for income and you still don't need CTC and you don't need CB (your words) do you wear a sack cloth and eat seaweed? How do you do it? I live in the SE in commuter land, on one wage with CB and TC for two dc. Trust me I have tried every which way, there is no money for saving. Over the course of 12 years I have used up all my savings (yes I did save up before having dc) and one wage has never afforded us anything other than a very modest lifestyle. Affordable childcare would have changed that.

The culture of excessive working hours is detrimental to health and not necessarily an indicator of productivity.

Im like Wishi and find my motivation increases due to the balance .
I know lots of people who have careers, forged pre children, who have now cut back their hours and are successful in both their parenting and career roles.

Bonsoir you often tell us that there is more to life than work, getting value from other things than work is preferential and yet you are now telling us that unless we work 60 hours a week we are not cutting it

Retro Pray tell, what freebies am I taking?

I think that any childcare subsidy should be given to all parents or none, irrespective of wohp or sahp.
Like any other benefit, means tested or awarded on need.
So if your family income doesn't cover essentials such as clothes, food, mortgage/rent you are given a subsidy. If you can afford luxuries out of your income then your child care costs should be your responsibility because it is your lifestyle choice.
That would be the fairest way imo. A sahp won't receive tax credits soon, so it evens the playing field and gives people choices.

ELT actually I said that I am in the second decile not the lowest decile. No I don't wear sackcloth but I shop around for clothing buying a mix of second hand and new depending on quality and availability. I also haven't eaten seaweed (which is a good source of iodine) although I did collect some with the intention of doing so but unfortunately I injured myself falling down the stairs so it had to be thrown away due to being left too long. It's fairly easy to eat healthily for under £1/person per day without resorting to seaweed though although we actually spend a little over that usually and closer to £2 sometimes due to ill health. I believe the national average is somewhere in the region of £4-6/person per day. I realise housing costs are higher in some areas but aside from that I am genuinely baffled as to what it is that everyone else is spending their money on that costs so much more. All I can think of is things like satellite TV or expensive holidays or buying all clothes new or lots of eating out/entertainment but then that wouldn't really be a modest lifestyle and wouldn't be one where people needed help to be able to feed their children. Plus I spend much more on toys and educational things for my children than I would if I sent them to childcare/school so the people we are talking about would have lower costs than me in some areas.

"Allegedly I do live in poverty. As stated earlier, yes I do claim CB but I don't claim state paid for childcare or education. The money is used exclusively on my children and benefits them so why would I turn it down just because they wouldn't starve if I didn't claim it?"

Your kids are in private school?

BadlyWritten Many families with a dual income do live in poverty. You sound very ignorant.

"The hypocrisy and selfishness of denying other people the choice to work or the choice to have children, staggering. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you don't get the last say on who should and shouldn't have children."
I am not denying anyone the choice to work or the choice to have children - I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that people on a dual income "need" help in order to feed their children and explaining why I find it hard to believe. As I stated before, the money I claim goes exclusively to benefit my children and I see no reason why they should not benefit. If I was claiming no benefits but sending my children to school would you still think I should not be doing that because I don't "need" to?

candy no my children are not in private school - I choose to educate them myself.

Last time I checked poverty was defined as earning 60% of the national average which is currently around £26k. That puts poverty as below £16k. Lets call full time 35 hours per week and part time half of that and the NMW gives them £19k so above the poverty line.

BadlyWrittenPoem, electricity, gas, water rates, Tv licence, phone, internet, travel(either car or public transport). If children are of school age then working parents will have school lunches to pay for, about £10 per week per child.

Being able to shop around isn't always an option.

You might have decent charity shops near you. For me, Primark is cheaper than the nearest charity shops.