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.

Word utility... Not wot utility

As I said upthread we have been in both positions.

Sorry Retro I'm not sure what you mean?

Yes don't they Janey.

Well you're the one whining about not having more govt handouts and childcare (which you don't even need!) retro

Candy "Having over 50k even in London is wealthy"

So if those on 50k are wealthy why do they need CB,the Tory childcare scheme and the labour childcare scheme?

Not getting it,you said they were wealthy.

We seem to agree that poorer families should get help but not the richer.

I think someone earlier said the HRT thing was used cos means testing is expensive. I guess they could do the same thing with the extra hours. But you would still think that was unfair as 2X 37 (or whatever the threshold is) would get it but 1X 42 wouldn't.

Oh fgs retro this is getting boring now! If one person earning 50k is wealthy, it does not necessarily follow that two people earning 25k are wealthy. Because there are all sorts of additional costs incurred for the dual earners. Even though you only mix with people who scrounge free childcare it doesn't follow that life is like that for Everyone else. And, importantly, that single earner family has another able bodied adult with a full week where they could work if they chose. The dual earners are already using the working hours available to them.
Clearly you are never going to agree because you want SAHP to be considered as a joint entity with their partner for tax purposes (though I would bet good money that in your earning days you damn well enjoyed being taxed as an individual and weren't clamouring for the inland revenue to pretend that your joint income was only being earned by one of you!)

Extra childcare would be great. DS isn't 3 til December, currently it costs £38 a day in childcare. My salary is low enough that I get help through tax credits for most if it, but even the 30% I pay is painful! £150 out of £690 take home a month.

Work recently asked if I'd go full time but due to the cap on how much they'll help with childcare, I'd end up paying the full whack on the 5th day and be no better off. It's a crazy situation really.

Saying that, as much as it'd make a huge difference to me, I'm not sure how they can afford it? Penalising the banks is a populist, knee jerk reaction that'll drive business out of the country.

You should expect to get what you deserve, that is why you pay such high tax.

Instead of feeling bitter towards those who claim, after 'all the tax you pay'.
It's your money, put into a government pot to use if and when the situation arises. There's nothing noble about not using what you have already earned.

Wow can you get tax credits when you are working part time? I assumed they were for someone working full time under a threshold.

I'm with Janey all the way.

Janey everybody has costs and as I said 2 x £25 pay lower tax,have 2x threshold,CB and the new Tory help.They may work from home,they make be creative with childcare.Circumstances vary.

Whether it is 50,60(as £60 is the CB cap and deemed as wealthy by Tories it seems a fair figure)or 70 any help needs to be capped as we don't have limitless pots of cash to fritter on the rich.

(The fact those on up to £300k are already going to be getting help on the Tory scheme is another issue).

But you seem to have a problem with capping benefits for the rich if they're both working as you clearly have a masseeeeeeve chip on this issue.

Nope, no chip here, because if I wanted to stop working I'd do it ( and not whine for CB as a reward either!)
You seem blinkered to the fact that you are the one whining and complaining here

So: tell us retro: during your earning days, did you beg the inland revenue to tax you and your partner as if you were a joint entity? Or were you happy to take the advantages of individual taxation back then? You seem to expect govt policy to chop and change to reflect your own, personal desires at any particular point in your life

Entitled, much?

Right back atcha.

You're whining and saying rich families should get help just because they both work.

They shouldn't.

We're a tad short of cash to be able to chuck money away.

Nope, I haven't said that at all. I've said that I think the free childcare hours are a massive boost to many many families because childcare costs are ridiculously high in the UK

And I have said that no one who is a HR taxpayer should feel entitled to CB whether they have a working or non working partner.

YOU are a rich family retro. You have a 60k income without you working, and the capacity for you to work if that's not enough for you.
You don't seem very happy for all that though .
Maybe try counting your blessings- it can work wonders you know

But you still think families on 100k should get CB,families on up to £300k the Tory help and any family the Labour help for the simple fact they both work.

Hypocrite much.

I am simply saying if £50k is wealthy then CB should be stopped for dual income families on that too and only the poorest should get help with childcare.

Not hard to understand or unreasonable.

I count my blessings daily,you could try doing the same and encourage those on high dual incomes to do so too.

We can both be passive aggressive.

And it's not hard to understand that a family on 300k will no doubt have such full on jobs that they need a nanny or two to cover the childcare they need. And that dual earners on 50k each are no doubt working long hours in high pressure managerial roles which again require enormous outlay. You don't get to those sort of positions without years of hard graft and expense. After all, you're the one who keeps telling us how your partner on 60k couldn't possibly function without you there 24/7 to enable it. Imagine the sort of childcare and support network a couple earning £150k each need. Oh and take a couple of minutes to do the maths and work out how many thousand pounds every month they pay in tax . Still envious of the piddly little few quid they might get towards childcare??
Oh and factor in that the costs of administering CB to account for dual earners each below the HR threshold would outweigh the costs of administering it as it is now.... But hey, why let the little matter of doing things cost effectively stand in the way of sheer envy and resentment

Seriously. Do the maths. Calculate how much a couple on 150k pay out every month in tax. Now try to get your head around the kind of work they might both do for those kind of incomes. As well as the hard work of parenting. Honestly anyone who bleats about such a couple possibly getting a few quid off their childcare bill must be seriously daft

Can you not see the utter hypocrisy in your posts.It's mind blowing.

Soooooo those on £300k work harder than the lowly lower workers and deserve help more because they pay more tax. Soooooo maybe those on 50 or 60k should get more help than those who pay less than them,that would work.

How's about those on £300 k just appreciate what they've got like you suggested further down and the tax payer just helps those in real need instead of frittering money on those who don't.

You seem to have a major blardy issue with sahp and those on 60k so much so you utterly contradict yourself.

Off to bed,this lazy good for nothing sahp has a shed load of stuff to do in the morning.

Let's do the sums and see how much it costs to leave the house for a £50k a year job.
.
£50k before tax is about £35k after tax, something like that. You'll work about 45-50 hours a week for that, and commute 10-20 hours.
Nanny is about £350 a week net, £500 a week gross, so £26k a year, leaving £9k a year.
Commute can be about £100 a week, so say about £4500 a year. Leaving £4500 a year 'disposable' income.
That's £4500 left over.

Now let's do the sums for 2 people on £50k. That's £100k.
Second earner has £35k after tax.
Take away their commute, £30.5k after tax.

Add to wages of other earner, household has £35k after tax.
Benefit cap is currently in region of £26k, so this couple, the megabucks couple in the top 10% of earners, have £9k more than a family on the benefit cap budget. To cover everything, with no subsidies or discounts or anything.

Makes you think, doesn't it?