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.

Maybe it would have been a sweeter pill to swallow if it were to be means tested. But then that would have cost more money to do. There is no easy answer.

We all know childcare is too expensive, but then it can be argued if you are paying for it you can afford it in the same way as the SAHP can be afforded.

All costs of living need to come down. The minimum wage needs to rise, if that happens then child care costs will rise. Its a never ending circle.

As or BWP's argument, I have never seen anything so hypocritical in all my life. It's all right for her to claim the CB and CTC that she doesn't need ( didn't stop her filling the forms in though) but those who have 2 incomes should manage their money better and not get help with childcare!

ElizabetaLuknichnaTomanovskaya, the introduction of tax credits and increase in immigration have contributed to lower wages. Tax credits weren't around when MT was in office.

Littlemisswise.

How is BWP hypocritical.
Firstly the benefit she receives is means tested, you only get it if you are a low income.
Secondly, it is going to stop soon, irrespective of income.
A sahp who chooses to remain so will receive only cb, if entitled.

People with dual incomes can afford childcare otherwise they wouldn't be working. If they choose to work for nothing that is their business and lifestyle choice.

Right so you and your dp have 300pcm (at least) more than 2 working parents on 80k combined. Yet you think those on 60k combined should lose their cb.

and TBH to earn that much you have to be fairly full on careerwise so you might well need a nanny, which is closer to 2500-2800. Or if it's split 30/50 you would lose some cb anyway.

morethan because she is telling posters that she would question theirneed. But is quite happy to claim money that she say she does not need. Just because you are entitled to it doesn't mean to say you have to claim it.

Retro I have never criticised your parenting nor your choice not to work. What works for one family does not work for another and while no, I have not had children, I have grown up in the world. Despite what you think, I have never commented on anyone's choices - I think it's how you feel and you're projecting onto me. I have commented on people i.e you complaining that they are struggling on almost twice the national average (not because I don't think that money can easily be eaten up by the cost of living - because I do actually live!) but because you expect money from the government. Why is that so hard to understand?

Same old same old... SAHM with partner on 60k whinging about two-working parent families getting help with childcare or getting CB because- hey, neither of them earn in the same bracket as SAHM's partner ...

Un- bloody- believable...

Glad you're here janes68, this is nothing to do with SAHP vs. WOHP and everything to do with high earners whinging. It's very unsavoury. Either we have a welfare state or we don't.

TotemPole the nmw, wtc, ctc and help with childcare costs have all been introduced as a response to the effects of neo-liberal reform.

Yes high earners on 80k whinging and saying they need help with childcare is unsavoury.

Wish how can you be so exact with your figures?Some couples on 80k won't be paying anything like 2k in childcare,some may not have a mortgage.The fact is at 5k a month they don't need CB more than a family on 60k or help with childcare.

those are your figures retro

littlemiss where have I suggested that anyone should not claim something because they don't need it? I have even said that I don't mind people getting something I don't get even if they don't need it. I have not questioned or criticised anyone for claiming (or being entitled to) any benefit regardless of need and explicitly stated that what I object to is people saying that they need a benefit when actually it is just nice to get. I'm not seeing how it is hypocritical for me to claim a benefit that is useful just because I don't need it to rpevent my children starving when I have not criticised anyone else doing that. And I'm not seeing how it is hypocritical for me to admit I don't need them - it would be hypocritical for me to say I do.

If you look at my earlier post I suggested that a joint income of 80 was equivalent to a single income of 60k. Which your figures bear out.

How interesting that the only link between high earning and whinging on this thread is coming not from the high earners themselves ( I have said countess times that I do not object to losing CB, and neither would I expect to get it again if I gave up work tomorrow) but from the nonearning partners of high earners....

Ironic much?

Seems those of us who are actually in that bracket are quite able to accept that we are the relatively fortunate ones. Why do these threads always get hijacked by a few SAHM who so deeply resent anyone else getting something they perceive as an advantage (like free childcare hours) even though they don't want or need it?

Very ironic janey . They seem to begrudge two salaries as well despite the fact they they dont want to actually work!

But family circumstances differ hugely which is why wasting money in a blanket policy on a huge number of wealthy families(as you put it)via childcare is utter madness and unfair if you factor CB(that those on less on't get)on top.

Wish 80k is 5k a month,60k was whatever you said £3300.

Baring in mind the 80k gets CB on top,may pay just £500 a month in childcare,is paying childcare for only a short time I'm not getting your point.

Oh and Janey some of us work in a partnership and regard household income as something we both own.I more than contribute to ours.

Happy how do you know we don't want to work.

I worked for years before dc and whilst having dc,I will do again in the future.I'm simply not working now -so shoot me.

... And working parents arent operating in a partnership?

Weird thinking.

Oh and Janey my dp can whinge for England re the CB issue- he has to fill out the form and think carefully re overtime or a payrise.Utter bonkers.

OFGS I really don't think you know what you are talking about. To take your example two parents on 40 odd. That's either ft or highly qualified professionals pt. Either way you don't get there unless you go back after mat leave. The vast, vast majority in this wage bracket will be paying through the nose for childcare for years. These extra 10 hours or cb is nice but it's a drop in the ocean frankly.

But take 2 X 25k for them these things will completely change their monthly budget.

Ditto

Funny none of my friends paid through the nose and many didn't go back straight after.It's 4 years per child,hardly a life time.

Families differ and have wildly different circumstances.

Aside from that for the less well off I get it,not for the wealthy.

Well we have been a single income family on 60k and paid for childcare for 2 on between 60-80k. We have earn 2 X 20 something. What do I not understand ?