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.

Thank you BWP I love seaweed. I hope you have recovered well. We did HEd for a few years, great fun. No TV here, no foreign holidays, most clothes 2nd hand except for dc aged 12 who passes a lot to his younger brother. Eat out a couple of times a month, nothing exp. National trust and English heritage for days out because we are members, walks, second hand books, all furniture inherited and an old banger. Maybe it is more to do with area, housing costs and difference in food costs?

The comments about expecting the state to pay for children just reeks of the daily mail. I wouldn't mind but there are people here who are slating some policies but happy to put their hand out when they can.

FWIW, as a tax payer who does not have any children, I am more than happy to support parents who want to work and I don't think any less of SAHPs who don't.

Sorry until you've had children and experienced what's like raising them I don't think you have any idea what it's like so can hardly judge either sahp or wp. You aren't either.

Here a clue Badly You are assuming that dual income families are all wealthy.

Some people are both on minimum wage with no hope of ever owning their own property, due to massive rents they are in a property trap.
They cant afford to study or gain qualifications to get them out of this trap.
Childcare, fuel, travel to get them to work is expensive.
Every last penny is accounted for. Too much month and not enough money, it only takes one small disaster to tip the balance.
If this helps people a tiny bit then I will be very happy. (this policy wont affect me at all)

"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."

Yes lets pay childcare for people who are home all day

I disagree it should be means tested too, people already play the system to gain WTC/CTC and if they choose to work few hours or have one parent stay home. If it has to be given then it need to be for households where all the adults work full time.

Id rather it went on schools budgets so they could afford more staff or equipment as believe children are the responsibility of their parents but given the amount that claim income support and tax credits thousands dont agree with that.

There are many people struggling to feed and clothe their children, but it isn't the dual family incomes. Ironically its those that are having their benefits stopped, cut.
It is sickening to hear how people who don't NEED help argue why they should be deserving of state help i.e subsidised childcare.
I have taken benefit over the years the same as every body who was entitled to it did. The difference is some of us aren't moaning about it, even though we are very low incomes.
We have sympathy for the unemployed, disabled, carers, etc.

Im not a pensioner retro should I not care nor have an opinion on their welfare/pensions

HappyMummy

Yes, lets. If they are providing childcare.

Ahh I knew this arsehole of a comment would come up Retro. What can't I judge? I'm not saying; oh it's easy to be a parent. I'm saying that I don't give a flying fuck what other people do. You are the one who is whinging.

Oh and I am infertile, so I hope your little dig made you really happy.

HappyMummyOfOne, I don't think there will be that many parents with school age children on income support. Single parents have to move onto JSA when their youngest child reaches 5.

Technically, I don't need DLA either but it makes me life much less shitty.

What a ridiculously personalised thread. Glaringly selfish in many parts, too. I hope parents do get more help, then the sour lemon folk can moan about that & look for others to slate for getting a bit of help. Some may not want to work, but for others it will be a blessing so they can work more hours. That doesnt seem enough for some, who wont be satisfied until nobody gets a damn thing. Scrabbling around picking on each other whilst the government shits on all. Some gameplan.

Totem and ELT thank you for answering my question. Aside from TV which we don't have neither of you have mentioned anything I don't spend on so presumably I just manage to get better deals or something. I get that housing costs vary a lot and I know electricity can be more expensive in certain areas plus council tax can vary but do other things really vary that much? I thought the supermarket food prices were fairly standard though so food shouldn't vary that much. I have to confess that we did have a foreign holiday this year for the first time ever but we significantly cut back on holidays the previous three years to pay for it (we felt the educational benefits were worth it) so averaged £350/year which I think is lower than your typical week in the UK.

I know I am exceptionally fortunate. That's why I think extra help to enable parents to both stay in the work place is so important.

Retropear you are hardly skint your family are on a very high wage of 50k. Maybe look on the bright side of life, and not look at what you havent got.

FTR, I don't mind other people getting money I don't - I don't even mind people getting money I don't who don't need it but what I do mind is people who are on much higher incomes claiming that they need help. Yes help is nice and can enhance your and your children's life but it's this concept of "need" which I object to. I'm happier with people who are single parents or out of work or long term sick getting help than those where both parents are working enough hours between them that they need childcare as at least I can see the need there.

I have always thought we should increase child benefit and then parents can make a choice to either pay for nursery or to help them stay home. Of course the government won't go for this even if it was cheaper. This is because they only want mums to make one choice ( to work and use paid institutional childcare) and they know many many parents would choose to have a parent at home.
I personally think the 15 hours are enough unless on a low income.

I agree that people don't always need help, like people on £50k. This is an incentive to work for those who want to. But what do I know eh, Retro?

Ditto Candy.

I have been somebody on the infertility rollercoaster(and funded 7 years of treatment 100% myself), I've been a wp and a sahp.

Sorry I don't get ow you can judge,belittle and be downright nasty to people in a situation you've never experienced.

You know the saying "walk a mile in my shoes"

Jasmine Labour don't think 50k is a high wage. And one could say just perhaps those on 60,80,100k joint are on a very high wage and you know they should look on the bright side instead of constantly wanting gov handouts.

Wow Retropear how rude. We all pay tax and we all care about society why can't Candy have a view.

Your household income is in excess of 60k.This policy will retain women in the workforce who currently can't afford to work because of the childcare. People like carers and others on the nmw. They should of course scrap all these fringe benefits and raise the nmw. But in the absence of that, this is a step in the right direction.

Oh and when you get that baby after years of trying it puts things into perspective- you want to be with that child above and beyond anything else,it's a biological need.

We are on 32k joint for doing 90 hours, and I feel like a millionaire. Im better off than every other couple I know. Suppose its all perspectives, but I feel like the luckiest person on earth in the last year getting that kind of money coming in.

Sorry Motorway with CB,double tax allowance,free 2 year old care and the measures Tories are bringing in I don't think a family on 60k needs yet more help.They are not needy.The £800 million could go on those who truly are needy.

Why has this thread now turned against higher earners? Everyone who is in favour of this policy has said it's good for people who are struggling to get back into work because they can't afford childcare. You know, low earners. What have high earners got to do with it? Unless we're working from the deeply flawed assumption that all families with two earners are rolling in the dosh.

Has anyone said "I'm a high earner and can afford childcare but I want the government to pay for it anyway"?

No, I thought not.

What some lower earners have said is that it will allow them to return to work when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. How is that bad, greedy, or entitled?

I don't think not having a child removes a person's entitlement to have an opinion on government spending on child related things. A childless person is still a memeber of our society and they both contribute to it and are affected by the government's social policies. I think better of a childless person who has opinions on the matter (even if I disagree with said opinions) than one who doesn't concern themselves with it just because the policies don't have such an obvious direct impact on them.