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.

Give it a rest. Both of you. Honestly, it's like having to step in between a couple of bickering 9year olds. There's tumbleweed running through a previously active thread and you're going round in circles.

Retro, get down off your Pony. Janey is being sarcastic and you aren't spotting it. Perhaps you should go to work if this is what you get worked up about.

Janey, stop baiting her!

I'm absolutely sure those on a combined income of 300k couldn't give a shiny shit about whether they get a few quid back compared to what they pay out. And neither are the HR taxpayer themselves complaining. What would be hypocritical is if I, as a HR tax payer was complaining about being hard up. Yet you as the non earning partner of a HR tax payer seem to feel more aggrieved than anyone about your lot. Next we'll get the 'I don't feel valued, society doesn't recognise my gifts ' spiel.
Honestly anyone who is a HR tax payer or partnered to one is relatively very very well off compared to the majority. And if you don't feel an income of 60k earned by just one of you earning is enough to satisfy your wants, there's always the choice of going out to work yourself. You too could be one of those HR tax payers if you put the training and hours in

Janey

I too don't see how a couple on 150k could possibly ask for help.
There are food banks, disabled people being forced out of their homes.
People seriously worrying about how they are going to feed their family.
If people on 150k can't manage, they can't be too bright.

I don't think they do ask for help morethan. Haven't seen anyone one here in that position asking for it. They're paying so much in tax per month that a few quid back won't make any difference

Btw I hope it's been noted that retro is the Person who's referred to SAHP as lazy and good for nothing. No one else. I personally think Being a good parent is hard work

Actually I agree: a couple on 150k each don't need help. (And to be fair, aren't asking for it. These cut off points for assistance are to do with cost effectiveness rather than the govt actually believing that's a meaningful cut off point)

I guess the big difference though is that I just can't get het to about these very few extremely high earners who just might possibly be entitled to a few quid . It doesn't make any difference to me, and if it would cost more for the govt to means test a different way, then why get in a lather about it

Yet retro seems so angry and up in arms all the time at the idea that someone somewhere might be getting something she doesn't get.

On a Serious note it makes me wonder whether the low self esteem issues which some women associate with SAHP are an issue here, which is really sad, particularly when you have chosen that role and Should feel able to embrace and enjoy it rather than tie yourself in knots about other families lives

Het up

The fact is being a sahp is worthwhile and many,many people want to do it.It is temporary and many people doing it will have worked for years before and after.

To only enable the rich to be a sahp is wrong as it is to fritter millions on a group that many of whom don't need it or who are already getting help.

Personally if we've got money to burn I'd rather the very poor got even more help with childcare or it went on schools and the crumbling NHS.

Oh and the gov manage to means test CB just fine - apparantly.

Nice for women to be allowed to work harder, but what does anyone gain from it? We all know that wages have been dragged down by cheap labour, this downward trend will involve work in higher brackets as more cheap labour comes in from the latest round of EU accessors.

We love you Labour, but please look at the reality on the front line. If these changes went in line with a law to prioritise British workers over EU workers this would be effective, but it's weeing in the wind to expect this to make any difference apart from enforcing children to be herded into institutions at a younger and younger age, women feeling exhausted because they are effectively doing two jobs.

The higher paid women pay for a cleaner, babysitters, gym, holidays, to enrich their lives and give them respite. Those with a two-wage mortgage to pay on an average or a low income do not have these things. They come home tired and drained, scrimp and save to feed healthy meals.

The advantage of having two parents working over one parent should be an additional wage. If that wage is not enough to cover childcare costs, the wage should be increased or the parent should be able to not work.

Having a two-wage mortgage to pay on one wage is the problem here and this does not affect most EU migrants who happily snap up the middle salary jobs and whom employers often prefer.

I'm not even going to touch on Boffin's privileged dilemmas of the high earners. Labour's concern with them smacks of self-interest, with many politicos earning these salaries it sounds as though they are simply protecting themselves.

Labour should not be afraid to embrace socialism, everyone can see now that capitalism doesn't work and never will. Only the wealthy and the greedy want capitalism, why would you want to pander to them?

The Boffin sums say it all. Those with very little money think a £50k earning has heaps of spare money . However when you take off the full time child care cost of 10 hours a day per child (someone may well have 3 children under 5) and tax/NI at £14k a year or whatever it is an repayment mortgage or rent that £50k means the earner is often not much better off than someone on state benefits who does not work or on a much lower salary.

Of course if you have a couple where both earn £150,000 they will be very well off (and there are so very very few of such dual high earners in the UK that whatever tax they pay has virtually no impact on anyone).

It sounds like a good idea, but only if they pay the going rate for childcare. When I was a pre-school committee chair the rate we got per session for the 'vouchers',( and it was only 12 hours a week in my day), had to be topped up if we were to afford to pay the staff wages and keep the place maintained and have suitable materials available for the children. If 25 hours a week is then a paltry amont per session, wither pre-schools will struggle massively to provide a decent level of care. Will they cut the ratios? Is that a good thing? No!

78 but 3 under 5 is your choice and it is temporary.I had 3 under 18 months and became a sahp for a while taking the financial pain that brings.

The Tories have brought in measures and there is CB.

Many parents on £50k may have the other in school and the childcare taken care of by the Tory measures.

Those on a lot less than 50k will have the same bills. Surely it's better to give those earning buggar all extra help.

Yes, it's certainly not simple and I would say if parents can work at a loss (or one of them) that can be an investment in a long term career so worth the pain. Once the lower earner has no childcare then they will be okay although in many areas if they need to leave at 8 for work and get back about 6 they will need until the children are 11 or 13 an pair or to pay for 3 hours after school care never mind all those school holidays so it does not really get cheaper for full time working parents until the children are b ig enough teenagers not to need anyone after school.

Full time working parents will often have children close together because if you are paying one person to look after them at your house the cost does not increase if you have 2 or 3 , whereas if you have a child every 4 years that is a huge extra loss of career/earnings or else additional childcare costs if you work.

I agree the extra 10 hours is childcare not education as it would only be available to working parents.

A mortgage of 50K should not be included as part of outgoings. This is the problem. We need to stop subsidising the housing market.

Those who say child benefit is fair.
What about a family with 1 earning 60k and 1 earning 15. They receive no chb but two earning say 40 and 35k do.
Sahm thing is a red herring. Sahm wouldn't benefit from this proposed policy because they don't need extra childcare but there child need a preschool education and 15 hours is enough.

Brighton

Firstly, anybody earning 75k don't need subsidising. They are bloody rich.
Also, why should a child with both parents working receive more pre school education than only one parent working.
I doubt they will log hours as to what is childcare and what is education.

I do think 15 hours is enough when they're little but in the year/ term before school I think they need more particularly those from poorer / less educated families.Not sure what it is now but rem feeling the pain of topping it up.

There is a fundamental principle that is at stake here, which is part of Labour's dilemma.

Disposable income is what you want it to be, above £30k. After that it becomes a lifestyle choice. If you have children, your disposable income is less because you have half the income you previously had, and this should be subsidised up until the average living wage. After that it is your choice whether you choose to have a sah parent or work to pay someone else to do it.

The trouble with this rule is it bears no regard to Labour's socialist principles. They are funding the lifestyle choice of the wealthy. The wealthy can downsize, they can do their own cleaning, they can have fewer holidays. The taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising their lifestyle.

They are not doing themselves any favours by pandering to the squeezed middle. Being squeezed is a relative term and it depends how fat you are in the first place. Lose some weight. I am getting really fed up with the Labour party's duplicity on this.

To add to Passed's thought provoking post I just want to mention the actual children involved.

What if you have a child/ children that don't thrive in childcare?What if you are a mother that can't cope with leaving your children?What if you are a family where it isn't working?We are all different,as are children.

This constant priority re getting mothers into work asap kind of turns a blind eye to the many families where this doesn't work.You often don't know the reality until you have the child in your arms.

Do we just ignore such families and do nothing to help them?

I agree those earning 75k don't need subsidizing for childcare. My response was about child benefit issues.
Actually I a a sahm with a partner earning 60k so we won't benefit if this propossl happened. We also don't receive child benefit either.
Personally I think 15 hours preschool education is enough from an educational and socialisation point of view.

And in my experience some of the really deprived children were better off at an all day nursery than they were with their parents. Quality of parenting also needs to be taken into account here. Sure Start centres would offer some parents all day care even for babies because they could personally assess which parents needed that support and which children would benefit.

A child centred approach like this is needed again and money spent on targeted childcare would save taxpayers money long term. A loving educated caring person should be encouraged to bring up their children as they will do it well. They should not be discouraged.

Passed first post,haven't digested the last one.

passedgo

I dont think it's particularly helpful to just throw in words like "wealthy" without classifying what you mean by it. My partner and I are currently on a double income of between 25,000 and 30,000 each. Combined we're at around 50,000. I NEVER considered myself rich! We are renting a small two bed house in London and we're lucky to have that. We don't have a TV license, we go on holiday once a year and ALWAYS camp or do a house swap as we couldn't afford hotel or BnB accomodation. We're doing fine, but we're NOT wealthy!

We're expecting our first baby in Jan, and I will have to give up work for - say - a year. I will stop getting paid after 6 weeks (which I think is a disgrace). We will just about be able to get by on my partner's income if we manage to save some money now to top up our income in the months after the baby arrives.

25 hours of free childcare/education will enable me to go back to work part time once the baby is 3 - something which I will value both to top up our income and because I value my own independence and work. We wouldn't be able to pay for that childcare - or if we would, all of my earnings would go towards the childcare, making the whole thing rather pointless.

Lalunya I am on your side, I mentioned £30k as the average living wage (per adult, not per household).