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!!!!

i have not read the thread. but have a question. why do they only do this if you have a 3-4 year old what about younger children. so that mums can go back to work

32

It's rubbish when it's assumed this is the case and remarks about not being able to use the cost of childcare as an excuse for not working.

I know there are lots of women who are prevented from working due to the cost of childcare and of course they should be supported.

The only comments I have made were those about means testing, which in times of austerity are necessary. Sahp's are no longer funded, welfare has/ will be cut further, the country can't afford to support lifestyle choices anymore. When it's a matter of lifestyle choice over necessity I think all benefits should be means tested, don't you?

But please don't encourage a situation where a sahm is vilified because they should be working as they have no excuse not to.

We fought long and hard for choice.

Most women don't pay tax. Don't you find that worrying? We leave ourselves so exposed.

I may not have had any "what about your kids" comments but I've had plenty of "when are you going to get a job" comments

Or my personal favourites "when are you going to get a proper job" and "no wonder your husband has to work such long hours to support a lady of lesuire"

I wouldn't mind but that last comment keeps coming from a "friend" who works part time herself

I'm not vilifying anyone- I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to stop working and has a partner willing and able to support that choice.

As for means testing- if the 30 hours will pay for itself as the evidence suggests, then actually it's not really a 'benefit' as such- it's a strategy for strengthening the economy. The fact that childcare will be cheaper than it otherwise would be, well, given that UK childcare is the most expensive in Europe, I don't think that's any bad thing. As I said, who is to judge what's 'affordable'? Technically, childcare for me was 'affordable' because we could (and did) pay for it all out of our own pockets, but it took all my income, and that's a situation many people aren't prepared to tolerate. We hear it time and again on here- women saying theyre giving up work, often once dc2 arrives because they aren't any better off working. I don't begrudge a policy which gives these women choice. If they decide not to take up the 30 hours and stop working anyway, then again, they are exercising a choice

Someone up thread said that the abolition of higher rate tax relief on pensions would be used to pay for it

Not sure about that

But I do agree with 32s last post

32

i know you aren't but I was answering your questions/ post.
It was somebody else who had made comments that assumed a sahm was using the cost of childcare as reason not to work.

Tax credits weren't a benefit as such until we got a new government. I think anything that gives you financial gain paid for by the tax payer is now assumed "a benefit", from gov pov

Obviously not all sahp use childcare costs as an excuse not to work but it would be naive to say that some don't. Well those people won't have that excuse once this is rolled out.
I used tax credits to pay for childcare and probably got more money off the government than if I stayed at home and claimed income support. I didn't put anything 'back in the pot' but all that money was spent in the economy. And now I do pay tax because I've worked my way up instead of having 5 years at home

I don't think childcare costs are used as an excuse not to work. They are used as a reason why many people cant work. Big difference.

If someone wants to be a SAHP and has a partner willing and able financially to support that they why would they need an 'excuse' ? That family are exercising a personal choice.

More than I said that because it's the only lreaon I can see why anyone would object to better outcomes for women and children

Morethan I'm not jealous of you at all. Contempt is closer to what I feel. Maybe mixed with pity. I'd hate to have such limited horizons. Your 'little top up' not only comes from taxpayers (whom you seem to hold in contempt you are certainly taking the piss out of us) but it is also taking money away from people who genuinely need it. As I said - appalling attitude.

I don't think its helpful to suggest SAHM use the cost of CC as an excuse to SAH.

Its everyones choice as to what they do and their right.

Where is this attitude that WOHP are some how getting something for nothing ie a salary that they spend on holidays and handbags
They work in exchange for a salary, so provide a service in some shape or form that we all use.

What about the 15 hours then should that be means tested? Or school? What if parents could afford private but use the free state system?same for nhs. This will give women choice. How can that be bad?
Exactly name change. Providing a service and also creating more demand for services, especially handbag makers and travel agents.

I think that the means testing itself would make it more expensive and difficult to administer.
Also we are talking a very short period of time - if the 3 year olds are rising 4 ie only one year in most cases.

I still cant get over a SAHM who has had so much assistance to do so being angry and resentful that WOHP might get a tiny amount of assistance
Is it jealousy that they might earn a decent wage ???
Don't they think their GP, teachers, nurses, midwives, shop workers, binmen or whatever to earn a living wage ??
Why the resentment ???
I don't get it ???

should

namechange

I don't need childcare nor have ever used it, paid or not. We didn't even take the free 15 hours.
I'm not angry nor resentful as I have no need to be, and very fortunate that none of the cuts/ changes that gov have announced will affect our family at all.
That doesn't stop me wanting fairness for others that follow, and nowhere have I said that childcare shouldn't be supported for those who wish to work.
It's seems fine to criticise a sahp who receives tc, but a wohp who does the same is fine because they are working, irrespective of whether the wohp is taking the same if not more than the sahp in a situation where neither are actually paying in more than the other.

Littleshorty
Don't forget the cleaners.

Narv
I asked you who you donated your cb to being as you don't hold with benefits. I would also like you to clarify that you wouldn't have received tax credits neither as this is clearly taking the piss. I'm sure you'd have not claimed or given them to a very good cause.
You hold me in such contempt for completing the forms and taking what was offered and for doing the best for my family.
As I said you have no idea about my family, you just like to bash people who you are obviously jealous of. Well in that case why don't you do the same.
Oh, and the argument of what would happen if we all decided to take this approach is immaterial as most women want to work apparently.

I believe the 15 hours pre school is universal and part of the education system, so can't see that as being means tested.

But, morethan, the evidence shows that keeping someone in work, even if this means that they need to be topped up Tax credits for a period of time, is a better investment economically than topping them up to not work.

That's the fundamental point you're ignoring.

It's not about personal family decisions about whether to SAH or not, it's about economics.

I am not against benefits. I am against people taking the piss and people who cheat the system. I do not get cb and I do not get tax credits. I voted for a party that would have increased my tax in the last election. I think it's contemptible that someone who takes from the system without ever paying in and who certainly contemplated manipulating it in the past should begrudge wohp from getting assistance with childcare costs. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Btw, I am not suggesting that TCs were a good thing- I think they've turned out to be the work of the devil! I'd much rather see higher wages and no need to top up. But given their existence (thus far!) it does make more sense to top up someone who is working than a family where there are adults choosing not to work

I really hope the 15 hours isn't means tested. Most people feel they'd like their 3-4 year olds to be able to do a few hours a week, provided they can find somewhere they're happy with. That seems reasonable. Other EU countries generally have some kind of nursery or preschool provision at this age.

I didn't use CC either but I did use the 15 hours EYE because I felt it was in my DC best interests and a good introduction to the DC they would go to school with ( gorgeous little preschool attached to school).

You do seem resentful though - talking about WOHP and holidays and handbags and not wanting other mothers to have to chance to WOH.
Why does it bother you that this policy might allow someone to continue their career?
How is giving a tiny bit of help to people who provide the services/goods our society relies on "unfair to sahp"

32

I have to disagree with you there It is about personal family decisions whether to sah or not.
When you have children you are responsible for raising them how you seem fit, in the best way you can, given the circumstances you have.
I'm not missing the fundamental point on economics, I'm doing whats best for my family, the same as everyone else does.
You'd think on these threads my family were the only people in the world to have tc's and a sahp. We aren't, there isn't just a rule for potatoprints family there are lots of people.
Some people decide to work instead of taking the tc because it still isn't enough to pay their bills and/or give them the lifestyle they want. This isn't my fault.
You can only live with the system that is in place, when it changes you have to change too. Sometimes life changes and you do too.
I may even be working come september because our situation will be changing. I won't need childcare any more for a start.

I think someone up thread also pointed out that TC will have a detrimental effect on later pension provision for those families who were topped up with them.
Ie SAH or WOH 16 hours a week and TC top up = no pension or pension based on 16 hours.
WOH 37.5 hours = pension based on 37.5 hours including your employers contributions on this amount.
Scary really as the state pension will also now be payable age 67.

Narv

well, we agree on something then. I don't like people who cheat the system neither. Most benefit fraud is picked up though and rest assured those people have to be able to sleep at night. I know I couldn't.
The thread was linked above, no manipulation on there my love, did you not read it.
No, there again you think you know. Have you any idea how business or tax works? maybe not like I didn't when I started a thread 2 years ago.
Thankfully I know far more about it now.
Anything else?

Sorry that should be women not families