To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

[AcademicOwl]

Ok, Queen's speech.
Proposal to increase 'free'* childcare to 30hrs for 3-4 year olds.

BUT only if all parents working.

As I understand, the current provision for 3-4 yo there are no caveats re parents working. So ok for SAHMs & SAHDs. Gives children chance to socialise pre-school, parents to find feet again and possibly find work.

I've got 2 DC under 5, and worked 3 days a week, so understand costs of childcare (I.e. Two in childcare = more than I earn by about £200pcm). Expecting DC 3 in Oct, so was considering a year out on a career break... Help make costs manageable, support family whilst they are titchy, etc. but DC 2 prob wouldn't be eligible for 'free' childcare if I do that.

Can't help but feel this is discriminating against SAHPs & again undervaluing the importance of parenting choices and the family unit...

What'd you want to bet they'll remove current 'free' provision?

*'free' because in our patch it isn't. The nursery work out how much money it contributes to your monthly bill, then you have to make up difference.and, yes, they are allowed to do that... I investigated at length a couple of years ago.

Grrrr!!!!

'Definitely children of a sahp need and should be able to access pre school education.
All children irrespective of household income or parents employment status need education.'

Maybe I am misunderstanding but aren't ALL children able to go to a school attached nursery from around 3 anyway? Pre school education IS available for the children of SAH parents.

'more than* I am a teacher that has worked part time since my DC were born. If my DH worked pt too, we would not be able to pay the bills. Teachers can work part time, but they will not have any career progression, as you have to be full time to manage a school. That leads to the same issue. Women in a female heavy profession, but with no career progression, with a male heavy management structure. What ambitious young woman would sign up for that? not many. These women are also paying NIC's for non working parents, so they get some sort of state pension. If more women were SAHP's, ironically, the less money would be available in the economy for people to be SAHP'S

fancy

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, I said those families that could survive well on one wage.
My objection is that we can't have it all ways, we can't support one lifestyle choice and not another.
Of course i think that parents, women in particular should be helped with childcare if it is needed, but when it isn't it becomes a lifestyle choice the same as other benefits excluding DLA and it will be a benefit.
Everybody is losing the money they don't need and many are losing the money they do need and subjected to poverty.
Nobody except the disabled are exempt, or so the Gov tell us.
There are arguments that tc allow a sahp, which in a few cases I think it does.
If you have outgoings and debts, like credit though, you need to work irrespective of tax credits. This has stopped or will do very soon, yes great while it lasted but has to go now, bye bye.
It is to replaced by a wohp being able to employ a cleaner for some, just the same. The gov have just robbed Peter to pay Paul.
Neither situation is more deserving but don't anybody kid themselves it will save any money.

Sorry, I meant any other benefits as well as DLA, I'm not that familiar with them all

Duelling

There are no school attached nurseries up here
I've only ever heard of them on here tbh.
They are a bit grim in our area. Although, I know there are some brilliant nurseries out there Thank you Janey if you are still about. My eyes have been opened on here.
It doesn't have any bearing on us at all, but I hope the 15 hours isn't pushed aside for "more deserving" cases. I hate loss of opportunity for children.

To those posters questioning why higher earners should receive help with child care, you are assuming both parents are high earners.

Yy I get that the family has a combined income, but realistically the childcare costs are taken from my salary. When our costs were at their peak (one at school, two preschool) plus travel, I was bringing home less than 150 a month.

The 15 hours a month made a massive difference to us. Made my career financially viable. Without having to depend on a man. I contribute far more in tax now than I received via those 15 hours a week.

Ok this will be unpopular but to all those querying why higher tax payers benefit- because there has to be something we get support on otherwise a system where people only ever pay in makes for more people opting to not ie quit...
I'm higher rate yet post childcare my disposable is less than when I was on £20k 10 years ago
If lower income is always supported the ability to more from lower to middle to higher incomes will be totally impossible because of the 'loss'
Childcare based supprt I'd accessible to all on 15 atm and is therefore a fair system
I'm amazed it's not something taken altogether

Financial support for childcare (which is how these 30 hours are being badged) is, in my view, about equality.

One of the biggest hurdles for women, all women regardless of income (well maybe no those with a private island) is the cost of childcare.

If this helps promote choice about whether to work, how much to work, I see it as a good thing. Without that choice, we don't have equality.

I'm not sure which category of people I fit into or what type of person people see me as: I do fear that perhaps people see me as a scrounger who gets benefits and is a lazy non contributing cow for being a SAHM.
I get carers allowance of £62 per week (previosuly worked in an essential worker role but gave up work due to DC complex disability). For my £62 per week during term time I provide care (much more than for my NT child) from 5am until I drop him at school at 9am, I then collect him at 3pm and carry out relentless caring duties (as well as usual mum stuff) until DC goes to bed at 9.30pm and then I usually do two night waking stints with DC to attend to his medical needs. During school holidays I do everything from 5am until 9.30pm and the two night waking stints. I am really lucky that DH helps out at weekends when he is not working.
We have a baby due soon and I am not sure we will qualify for any free early years education because I am not employed. I know that I work a damn sight harder now than I did when I was a key service worker but my remuneration is staggeringly less.
I read these threads and it makes me very depressed that some people might think as a SAHM I have made a lifestyle choice and don't deserve any financial support. I know some of the parents at my NT child's school think I am just a lady of leisure living off my husbands earnings.
I won't be wanting 30 hours of childcare for my baby when he reaches 3. We will need some care and 15 hours would be nice but we will pay for it ourselves if we have to (like we did with DC2 because it was in the days prior to the 15 hours). I do fear that other parents in my position might not be able to pay and if the 15 hours is removed to fund the 30 hours for working parents or if the situation creates a severe shortage of early years places then some people in my position will not be able to access anything.
It does feel a bit like robbing from one group to give more to another group.

Is there any talk of removing the 15 hours? I thought that was part of early years education.

Troll You said your childminder would be able to afford savings and a pension. As a childminder who has been offering the free 15 hours (subsidised by ME), I am asking you how we are to afford this when we are subsidising other people's free childcare so they can afford a cleaner.

Like the Government, you're not listening and you have ignored what you've been told on this thread. So I'll say it again, very clearly:

We providers cannot afford to subsidise your free childcare

Chchchanging makes a very pertinent point.
We need people who are prepared to work their way up in the workforce, to take on those roles which carry greater responsibility, and if the incentive isn't there, people are going to be reluctant to do so.

When I was a young graduate in my profession, I looked at those further up the line and naively assumed that they must be raking it in. Of course, now that I've reached that postion, I can see that once NI and tax contributions are made, what's left in my purse is waaaaay below what my salary looks like on paper.

I wouldn't for a minute complain about my income, but I do think a valid point is made upthread. Ultimately it's a balancing act: yes, obviously those earning more should pay more tax, but push them
Too hard and they'll weigh up whether it's worth taking on a tougher role and may end up hovering just below tax rate thresholds.

Same with childcare: for every person like me, who went out to work even though for a few years chhildcare took up all of my income, there will be another person who says, no, I'm not prepared to work for nothing, and gives up.

Not incentivising people to reach their potential is really bad In the long term. The next major crisis to hit a whole generation In the UK will be pensions... There are going to be hordes of people who have only got by day to day because of top ups like tax credits, which of course help out in the short term but do nothing long term- these people are going to be stuffed in their old age.

Going slightly away from the main topic there, but it's all relevant because it comes back to widening access to work for people- and in particular women who historically are the ones who get stuffed most when it comes to things like pensions

No talk of it, Stichintime.

Does anyone else get sick of seeing questions around why 'higher earners' should qualify for the changes?

At what point do you think we should stop penalising people for being successful?

Why should the fact that you have more income mean that you are not entitled to a break in childcare costs?

This ridiculous attitude has to stop

True chchchanging, and one of the many reasons I wasn't keen on CB being means tested. You do have to do something to keep people onside. The threshold at which the 40% tax kicks in is really not that high, after all.

This whole thread has pissed me off. It has turned into 'they earn too much', 'they don't earn enough', 'they are freeloaders', 'won't someone think of the children'.

FFS. This site is called mumsnet. The vast majority of people who post are women.

I would like to think the majority would like equality in life, to be equal in society with men.

To have that, we need choice about how we live. People have been campaigning for years for better, more affordable childcare. Lack of quality, affordable childcare is widely acknowledged to be a barrier to women who want to work.

We have a sniff of help for childcare and we turn it into a bunfight.

This is a step towards the goal of choice.

Whether it happens, whether there are limits, whether everyone will be able to access the help when and where needed, whether childcare providers can afford to offer it, whether it will be quality childcare remains to be seen.

I really don't care if you work or you don't. That is a private decision and none of my business. I do care that you get the choice.

In answer to some of the issues raised on this thread:

1. SAHMs don't have the monopoly on voluntary work - locally to me, both Beavers/Cubs and Brownies are staffed fully by FT WOHPs. Same with Football and Rugby clubs, and I can only think of one SAHP in the PTA and none who are school Governors.
2. WOHPs often lose out on childcare 'freebies' such as community summer clubs as clubs that run 10-3 are about as much use as a chocolate teapot if you work 8-5.

I am at some of the bitchy ' if I'm not benefitting no one else should' comments.

And yy to everything tilder has said.

Yes, tilder.

I believe that we should have free at the point of delivery 24/7 childcare for everyone who wants it (like the nhs).

It's not about working/not working/deserving/undeserving.

I'm not sure why having a cleaner is being seen on this thread as being something that is an unnecessary luxury being paid for by taxpayers. If you are a working parent, spending the time you do have with your children instead of mopping the floor is even more important, surely?

Tilder- the thread hasn't pissed me off, but I do agree with you on one thing: I too find it depressing that after women have said for years and years that the main barrier to work is high childcare costs, the moment there's a whiff of help, people start piling in complaining about it!

It smacks to me of two things: insecurity among some people about their own choices; they feel that any proposed changes are somehow a threat to them.

And the second thing, which is a more unpleasant attitude imo is that some people have an inbuilt selfishness and resentment which means they don't like other people getting something which they themselves havent benefited from.
I'd just ask this question: how do you think attitudes and policies would ever move forward if we all just resented policies just because they don't benefit us individually?
Like other women of my age, I lived through the era when we had 12 weeks Maternity leave followed by 4 years of paying full childcare costs all year round until our children started school and the bills dropped a bit. Our husbands were the ones who had one day off work for the birth of their children because paternity leave didn't exist.

Do I think parents shouldn't have help now, just because I didn't qualify for it? No, because actually I want a society where there are greater opportunities and choices, and where frankly it isn't such a bloody hard grind and financial drain as it was back in the day.

It's really quite depressing to see some posts where people just seethe with resentment about a policy which won't affect them because they don't even want or need 30 hours free childcare

If you are a working parent, spending the time you do have with your children instead of mopping the floor is even more important, surely?

I disagree, I think it is an extremely bad example for children.

Even better if you can mop the floor together. Historically you know, parents didn't play with their children hardly at all. Children played with each other. Poor people had to work and the rich or aspirational had governesses to educate & supervise.

If you're a SAHP Charis, presumably you do the cleaning while your child is asleep or at nursery/school so I can't see what difference it makes.

The debate hasn't really come down to cleaning has it?