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.

Anot maybe women want to be with their kids more(how dare they).

My dp offered to be the sahp but I was the one who wanted it more.

Then again, Retropear, some women don't.

Retropear There's nothing wrong with women or men wanting to be with the kids more, so if you (or anyone else) has chosen to be the SAHP, you (or them) do not need extra 10 hours at nursery.

Nobody is forcing either gender to stay at home so lets quit with the gender crap.

Candy no but I'd like the choice,equal CB,equal tax and not to be funding the childcare of those that don't need it or those that choose to have 3 and above kids without planning ahead.

Sorry but how is CB not equal? Genuine question. Also - it's just for the parents it will benefit, it will benefit the child too. You already said you are/were a SAHM, so it won't affect you anyway.

Nobody is 'forcing' women to stay at home more than men, but it doesn't change the fact that statistically it is indeed the women who stay at home, and who end up under-paid and under-employed down the line because of it. That's just a fact, and it's usually highlighted as one of the major reasons for the overall gender pay gap.

For me personally this policy would be great, I currently work 22.5 hours a week and after childcare, tax and NI contributions, my take home salary is £343 a month.

This policy for me would mean that I wouldn't be paying any childcare for my son and I would pay more tax and NI, but I would be considerably better off!

I think the money would be better spent on building more classrooms/schools and employing more teachers.
Childcare should be the responsibility of the parents not the state. Education, the responsibility of the state.
But neither apply to us, so it doesn't make much difference tbh.

" " I'm stuck being a SAHM because I've been out of work too long."

Maybe if there had been better, more affordable childcare then this kind of situation wouldn't be so common - women able to go back to work sooner, and wouldn't be in the situation you are now? Not saying this necessarily applies to you because everybody has a different reason for being a SAHP, but for parents who want to work and can't because childcare is so expensive, this will be a massive help."

No for me personally and many of women (and a couple of dad's) who work part time the problem is not when the DCs are small. Yes child care is very expensive, but it exists.

There is an absolutely wonderful 8.30-5.45 nursery 5 miles down the road. Several people I know used it when their DCs were small. trouble is it's after school club only collects from the school up the road.

Suddenly instead of being able to work longer hours as you'd expect, people are cutting their hours and panicking about what to do in the school holidays.

Our CMs don't want excess after school children because they count against their more profitable all day toddler numbers and small rural schools have real trouble sustaining wrap round care and holiday clubs with only limited numbers of children.

Candy you'd have to be on Mars to not know the unfairness re CB and 1 income families.

I agree the new CB policy is unfair to some but not necessarily on 1 income families. On here, a lot of SAHMs act very hard done by for the choices they (usually) make and I don't get it. Either you're happy being a SAHP or you're not, in which case, woooo what a great policy for parents of young children desperate to get into work with less worry about extortionate childcare costs.

Retropear, how do you feel about funding the nhs for illnesses you might be unlikely to develop?

Parents should be working before they have children, that way mothers have a job to go back to when maternity leave ends in most cases.

Childcare should be free or heavily subsidised for parents who both work. I really don't see the point of giving extra hours to three and four year olds. It would be better to give it for whenever maternity leave ends, but only to parents who actually need childcare.

15 hours a week is enough for early years education, so this isn't about education. It's about childcare, which only working parents need.

Is is being described as childcare rather than education. But there is no such thing as free childcare or free anything else. It's all got to be paid for. And I'm not quite sure that Labour quite grasp that point.

I don't get the childcare/education argument being made here eg in potatoprints post, as childcare is also early years education for the child ....
possibly the most important years of education they'll ever have.

Of course that education can take place at home or be home-based with toddler groups etc, or it can also involve varying amounts and kinds of nursery or pre-school provision.

Retro, one income families are not hard done by with CB. If they can afford to have a SAHP, they don't need the money. Families with two parents working have to pay childcare, two lots of commuting costs and two lots of clothes suitable for work. One income families only have half of those costs and no childcare issues, they don't need CB.

I can't afford to work as twins wasn't in the budget but i'm so glad that it forced me to be a sahm this time round after I'd give back to work the first time. I find it sad that increasingly both parents have to work to pay the bills and other people are bringing up the children.
This isn't a working mums attack, I've done both and think that funding childcare will force mums to work which I don't know if that is necessarily a good thing.

morethanpotatoprints education is also the responsibility of the parent under law, otherwise what you are doing would be illegal.

But why should one thing be a collective responsibility and another an individual responsibility? serious question.

Surely we either say we have individual responsibility to the collective good or we have individual responsibility to ourselves and no other. If childcare should be paid out of wages and not taxes, should education, health, roads, libraries etc,..?

Right now the average worker has been shafted for 30 years. All the wages we should have been receiving have accumulated in our bosses back pockets. Our bosses are crooked weasels who don't believe in the collective good, they neither want to pay out of their own money or pay through taxation, claiming "what me, I don't use those free childcare places, NHS hospitals, state schools, wouldn't touch it with a barge pole" maybe because they don't have to unlike the rest of us!

Either we should campaign for higher wages, so high in fact that we can all afford to pay our own way without state support, incl paying for all and any childcare or we should demand a modest but fair percentage of the wealth WE create, demand a fair progressive tax system that picks the pockets of the weasels and provides a decent education, childcare, health and welfare for everyone.

I don't understand why the state subsidises both parents working. If I went back to work I would have a net again of £1k per year before taking into account that due to lack of time I would probably spend more than I do now. The net cost to the state in terms of it's increased spending on me (after taking into account the extra tax etc I would pay) would be £4k. How does that make sense and why should the state subsidise me if I choose to go out to work after having children?

Broken, if families on one income with a SAHP don't need CB then why does anyone need it? I am a SAHP by choice and we are in the second decile for income which means that mostly only people living on benefits without any full time income would have a lower income than ours. If we don't need child benefit because we can afford to have a parent at home then pretty much everyone can afford to have a parent at home and doesn't need CB.

I'd rather the state subsidised working parents who are making some effort to support themselves rather than subsidise parents who can't be arsed because they can claim child tax credits.

We already subsidise parents and unfortunately that's not going to go away, so if were going to support any parents, it should be the right ones.

Child tax credits are the work of the devil.

Broken, if families on one income with a SAHP don't need CB then why does anyone need it?

Because having children and working is an expensive business, and it's good that the state support people at particularly expensive times in their lives.

If you can afford to have a SAHP on a low income, then you probably claim other benefits.

Most families that are forced into having two parents working are in that position because they have a mortgage to pay.

BadlyWritten What tosh! You cannot apply your experience to the rest of people around the country.

Yes we do claim CTC but if I worked the government would give me more than the current CTC in the form of childcare tax credits so I don't see how that would be "better". Plus the state spends more per child on state education than it gives per child in tax credits so I even with the means tested benefit I am still claiming less than the majority. So yes I am being subsidised by the state but by less than the majority of parents and even if I wasn't I would still be making the same choice - CTC doesn't come into my decision to take direct personal responsibility for caring for and educating my own children.