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!!!!

How do you judge who needs it?
Anyone with kids who works needs childcare of some sort and we have the most expensive childcare in europe. This seems like a move towards a more Scandinavian style, universal childcare which is proven to give better outcomes for women and children.
You want to stay st home do so but know that you won't be able to use childcare costs as a reason for that. For families that want or need to work this is a good thing.

Are people saying that the extra money isn't a problem even in times of austerity because it effectively pays for itself? I'm really not an economist.

Extra money for childcare I mean?

What stamping of feet ???
It wont benefit me , Im not invested in this in a personal way at all !

I don't think you understand how the economy works Ivy or more likely don't want to, if it doesn't fit your agenda.

I think the op is completely unreasonable. The menopause...

And the pp who said only a sahp thinks 30 hrs is full-time. Both my sons attended 8-6 5 days a week!

You have made a choice to stay at home. Most of us have elderly parents. I fail to see how you think having 30 hrs is your right when you have chosen not to work

stitch for me, that is exactly the case. I pay more in tax each year than I receive in help. I will continue to pay that tax when I no longer need the support.

This is about enabling choice for everyone. Women have been campaigning for over a generation for improved access to affordable, quality childcare. This is (hopefully) a step in that direction.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail.

Rubbish.You don't gave to be an economist to see that wasting money on those that can and do afford childcare is not necessarily a good thing.Just the same as wasting money on those that don't need fsm or wfa isn't the most prudent idea.That money will have to come from somewhere.

If we want the Scaninadian model we will have to pay a lot more in tax particularly if we want decent schools,NHS etc.

Considering the gov want to reduce taxes I don't see that happening any time soon.

So ivy I will ask again. Who exactly is deserving of the money?

For 4 years my take home (including the government support) was £150. Without support, I would have been in the red. Would I qualify?

IB- We could 'afford' childcare, but it took the equivalent of all my income for several years, meaning (ironically) that although we had a roof over our heads and food on the table, had no spare money to plough back into the economy through spending on anything else. And like I said, loads of people in our situation STOP working, because they don't believe it's worth it when it takes all one income.

This policy will widen access to work for thousands of families. It will be economically beneficial. You are just repeating your mantra that it's 'wasting money' because you personally don't want to make use of the provision.

Putting aside the economic arguments what about the effects this will have on child poverty ?
The working poor will have more money and more opportunities
that can only be a good thing.
The "oh they are all sooo rich and undeserving" doesn't quite add up when in the UK 1 in 4 children lives in poverty.

www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures.

It's particularly important for the mothers of sons to work otherwise we will have yet another generation of men who think that women should be barefoot in the kitchen or that women can never and should never aspire to do jobs of consequence.

I think the PP who highlighted the fact that certain people are worried about losing their excuse for not working is correct. I disagree 100% with Morethan's applling attitude but at least she is honest.

No idea Tilder I'm sure somebody better qualified would be best to suggest an actual cut off or tapering off. Can't see it being increased more by vast amounts anytime soon unless they do or increase tax or make bigger cuts elsewhere.

We shall see.

Ok. It's just I presumed (perhaps erroneously) that the cut off would be expected at the cb cut off. Which would effect women like me.

FWIW, I won't directly benefit in any case. My children will all be at school. I see the benefit for a fairer society though. Who would have thought, something from the Tories I actually agree with.

Surely the argument here isn't whether mothers working is best for the kids, as that is debatable and not what the govt are interested in. The issue is whether it will benefit the economy on a wider scale. The govt believe it will,and it will free up money for thousands who will go on to spend it in the economy...another benefit. So while it won't benefit me anyway as I don't work at the moment as kids are small, and by the time it kicks in they will be at school, I still think it will be a good thing overall.

Narv

I have 2 grown up sons who both have several jobs and whose gf/ future wives also work. Both girls have stated that they would like to continue to work when they have dc, but have said prefer p/t working around their dh jobs. Neither of my sons think it is a woman's job to sah and I don't see how if you have a parent at home this makes any difference, tbh. My dd is only 11 and has mapped her life out and nowhere does it include being wifey chained to the sink.

Could I ask how my attitude is appalling? I don't need a reason to not work for an employer, I don't want to and nor do I have the time right now. I'm too busy enjoying a life which is too short already.

I do disagree that children will automatically follow the example their parents set.

I'm a SAHM. My mum wasn't. Hers wasn't.

Morethan given that you have stated several times that you claim benefits people like me are paying for you to swan around 'enjoying life'.

Five acres it's the impact on boys that I'm concerned about, not the impact on girls. It would be nice if the women of the future - our daughters - werent constantly having to answer the question 'but what about your kids' from their male colleagues. Not, obviously, something that SAHM have to put up with. But believe me it gets wearisome after a while.

True.

I don't think that's necessarily because of SAHMs though.

I can well believe it gets wearisome. I haven't always been a SAHM

Agreed. Dh is the youngest of 4 boys born to a sahm. All wives/girlfriends of the various brothers work and are successful. I don't work at the moment as the kids are small, but when I did I earned as much as him. My mother wasn't a sahm on the whole, and none of my female relations were. I guess we all forge our own path.

I find it very sad that we live in such a time when women have more rights than ever, yet women are still coming out with such rubbish against their own.

Why should it be automatically assumed that a woman not in employment uses the cost of childcare as an excuse not to work.
Working for somebody else, even for money is not everyone's idea of bliss. Some women do actually choose to be a sahm, some really enjoy it.
they don't need to make excuses why they don't work it's the 21st Century, not 1950 ffs.

Well yes, but it isn't about it being bliss, just necessity.

Of course, if you find a job you like and want to do it anyway, that's great.

most women who work don't pay tax . Maybe that's because their wages take such a hit when they have 5 years off!

In terms of 'high earners' my FTE including bonus is 45k ish, round here that is pretty good (I dont live in the SE) but with 2 children in nursery I was still working for about 20 quid a day (after tax)

Narv

You know nothing of my situation and have no idea how much tc we receive.
You're so up your own ass with jealousy of some great situation you imagine a sahp to be in it's laughable.

However, you are correct you do pay for me to sah, because my family live frugally and we can manage on one small wage and a little top up.
Maybe I should have worked, not paid any tax and let you foot my childcare bill with more tax credits. We could have had grande holidays, a couple of cars, a nice wardrobe, Sky TV, nice handbags etc. because that is what my earnings would have bought.
And I'm the one with the attitude problem.
Working as you can see, can cost the state a lot of money and you aren't always in a position to put any back in the pot.

Morethan... Many women have been saying for a long time that the cost of childcare in the UK is what prevents them working. Women are saying that.
So this isn't about women coming out with 'rubbish against their own.'
And as for the implication that only women who give up work completely for years, and then possibly get a little p/t job to fit round school hours, have some sort of monopoly on mothering fulfilment is quite frankly bizarre.

I was a SAHM for around 18 months, and worked p/t for a couple of years and love every minute. I was also totally ready to step back into f/t work as soon as could- not because of any deficit in the maternal department, but because it's actually possible for women as well as men to be successful in the workplace and to be raising a family. Who'd a thought it eh?