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!!!!

Tarka

When I was on £40,000 pa or just above, I took home after tax, NI and pension contributions just over £2000.

Here, a full time nursery place is £850 for one child. I recognise that will vary according to the type of childcare and the area of the country.

Therefore for two children I'd be paying £1700 pm, giving me a 'profit' of just over £300.

Once travelling costs were factored in, yes, I would have been 'working for nothing'. I also have a school age child who would need after school care so in my case I would certainly have been working at a loss.

It's depressing really, isn't it?

I saw my cousin try and juggle ft work and my aunts care.
She had a breakdown.

It is depressing.
Incredibly so.

I'm that so many think the 15 hours of free early years education is unnecessary. Maybe we should do away with reception classes for children with SAHP's too?!

If you are a SAHP, presumably because you think that is best for your family, why do you want you 3 & 4 year olds to have 30 hours childcare? 15 hours is quite sufficient for educational purposes. It sound like some people want the equivalent of whole school days off from both work and childcare. Fine, its not fair for taxpayers to pay for it. If you are a full time student, you get help with childcare. If you want to volunteer, do it in the 15 hours. If you can't do more, you can't do more. Its not discrimination against SAHP, its nothing to do with them, because they are the childcare. That is their job.

I may have this wrong but if this is for early years education then if you are the child of a sahp then you are entitled to 15 hours less education. So children of sahp may then be at an educational disadvantage? Is that right or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I agree wohp need more childcare help (I am sahp) but not to the detriment of either sets of children.

I'm not sure, Baddz. I think the problem is the safety net is sufficient to stop people actually whacking down to the concrete but isn't necessarily a comfortable place to be.

I know around here calls to the elderly by most care companies are fifteen minutes to make a spot of lunch or breakfast or assist with washing or toileting. It's pretty rubbish not only for the elderly person but also for the carers, who get paid less than £2 per visit. However, I can also objectively see that the sheer number of elderly people in the country at this time needing care and support would bankrupt the country probably in a matter of months if care was to go beyond the 'minimum'.

I am not sure what the solution is, quite truthfully. Certainly, I wish you well - it's something I have been spared and that given my family's tendency to be in the peak of health one moment and in a coffin the next it's probably something I shall spare my children

Really, it needs to come down to common sense and compassion. Should a parent who doesn't work but has elderly parents herself be entitled to access some childcare to enable her to do both caring roles properly? I would say yes, and that's where the 15 hours comes in. Do they need 30 hours - no, probably not

I don't really understand why anyone would object apart from the far right who think the state shouldn't pay for anything.

IME not all SAHP are in that position through choice. It demonstrates the problem with mumsnet that we think all SAHP have dps who earn 100 of 1000s. Most SAHP are there because work wouldn't pay-this will be a massive help to them.

Lynette...I know :(
Fact is that by doing my voluntary work I am saving the tax payer money. Ditto looking after my mum.
That's not why I do it, obv
I do wonder what would happen if ALL the sahps that this govt so despise all just said "ok, I'm going back to work. My mum/dad need care, my kids need wrap around childcare, the elderly that I volunteeer with need care. Thanks"
Seriously...what would happen?
Services are at breaking point as it is!
My Dh is a higher rate tax payer. Me being at home enables him to do his job.
So why is it ok to take away benefits and services from sahps (who are normally women) and their children?
It sucks.
And what about lone parents!?

Oh tarka are you really that blinkered? Do you really think that, just because parents 'manage' paying fees, they don't need help? Christ almighty I honestly feel shocked at what an utterly stupid view you have.

Shall I tell you what it's like, managing to pay dc nursery fees? There have been times where we have had to feed all 3 of us with a budget of £10 for a week. Where I have actually had to ask work if I could take some nappies from the paeds area because I had 1 left and no money to buy some. My dc got pneumonia and spent a week in hospital which was as a direct result of only being able to afford 2 hours of heating per day in the coldest winter for decades.

Now you tell me that we don't need help because we are 'managing' to pay dc fees. If I don't pay he doesn't go, if he doesn't go I can't work.....vicious circle.

I'm going to wait for the details TBH.

Yes, all children should have their 15 hours. Some of the children from the most chaotic and difficult households don't have two working parents, but benefit massively from pre-school early years education before school. Something that they couldn't access without the entitlement.

BUT they don't need 30 hours. 30 hours is childcare.

If one it taken away to help fund the other, then I will be up in arms. But I'm not going to get worked up in case that's how they fund it. I might not be fond of DC, but I'm not going to automatically battle everything - save it for the ones that need your energy. There are already things announced to get annoyed about.

Gorgeous

It still amounts to the 'same difference', however - a couple who's 'take home' was £4000 but expenses, including childcare, amounted to £3000 would well conclude that if their 'take home' was £2000 but their expenses were reduced to £1000, thus making the 'take home' the same, that having one parent at home was the easier option. It can be stressful working and having children in childcare (I know I am preaching to the converted!)

I don't consider myself a bad role model to my children because I don't currently work, and I also feel I contribute significantly to society. It is those sorts of comments that hugely devalue the role of a SAHP. I care little for politicians viewpoints as I interpret them from solely a financial perspective; I do object to other parents informing me that the only way to be a good role model to my children and contribute to society is to put them into childcare from Monday to Friday for eight hours a day.

NI is paid via claiming child benefit and, though this may be personal, I am highly unlikely ever to see my pension! At any rate, pension contributions can relatively easily be 'caught up on' though I will invest elsewhere as I don't think I will live to claim mine.

Yes exactly stillwish If you want to work but can't, then this will help you get back to work. If you don't want to go back to work, then its not at all relevant. You don't need childcare. I think the people who are saying the OP is unreasonable are talking about those who want to remain SAHPs despite their children being in childcare for 30 hours a week. If you want to do that, it should be financed and agreed in the family. Not from the taxes partly of working parents.

I agree.
I wouldn't need 30 hours and wouldn't have used it tbh.
But perhaps some sahps would?
The 15 was great. Just right imo.
Very true wrt ending up a sahp.
Not what I imagined I would be doing at 42!!!
But...large gap between kids, very ill baby, Dh changing roles so he now travels a lot, mums health declining....
If I had the choice I would like to go back to work.
But, honestly? I can't see it happening anytime soon. :(

Most SAHMs do so by choice because that's what they want. Why on earth would the government give them 30 hours free childcare? They don't need it in any shape or form.

It makes sense to help working parents as they will be paying tax. Once the children no longer need childcare they will still be paying tax. The nursery will pay taxes and its workers. It also has the added advantage that the children see work as something you just do so they will likely go on to be future tax payers.

What the government are trying to get way from is those that choose to stay home but need state money to do so. By giving free childcare and removing tax credits people will work. UC has tighter rules on not working than the current free for all system of tax credits.

The fifteen hours pre school education will likely remain, most see it as free childcare rather than education though so who knows. Starting school at 4 in reception is early enough as it is so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it did go. Many countries don't start until later.

Sorry, obv wasn't clear...

1. I work. So not currently SAH anything & haven't been previously (but considering options for next few years). Not meaning to set back any causes (somewhat of an unfair accusation, stopandlook). It's a discussion forum and I understand it's ok to discuss, isn't it?

2. yes, worried about removal of 15 hrs - I agree, it's about early years education & I think that's important

3. birling, in my patch, it's not 15hrs; it's some random amount "towards" childcare, because the allowance doesn't come close to covering the cost of the recommended hours (still mad about that - you can prob tell!). So you have to 'top up' with money even if your child only does equivalent to 15hrs term time.

4. absolutely right Silentelf. Hadn't twigged the 2017 intro date.

I guess I worry about pushing parents (and I'm afraid it's mostly mums who are SAH carers) into work. I think that the assumption is your 3yo is on the path to school therefore you must be able to work. Doesn't count the 1yo you also have at home. Is that social engineering?

I'd like to see options opened up to support all parents, really - but appreciate 30hrs is a lot if you are SAH. But feel v strongly that the 15hrs shouldn't be reduced.

:) bit of unreasonable in the morning always good for debate. Still think this sets a narrative of the failure to include carers (& you can make that quite broad - so carers for other dependants, too) as not part of the "hard working family" ethic. Which is clearly nonsense; caring is hard work and we should value it as a society. (And before anyone shouts, yes I have experience of that too). It isn't about handouts; it's about the values we think are important as a society. I know I used myself as an example (should know better, always get shot at); but I just query the ethos, really.

Baddz

The trick is to view what politicians say from the viewpoint of finance.

There is a financial cost and an emotional cost. At the moment, the emotional cost of leaving my children in childcare is higher than anything, therefore I choose not to do it. Right now - for the next twenty four months or so - I choose to stay at home and I know that's the best choice for my family.

I don't see it as a slight on my emotional contributions that my children aren't eligible for 30 hours, and nor should you. That is pragmatic and financial rather than emotional.

It isnt education because children legally dont need to be in education till they are 5 years old so nursery preschool is optional not 1 parent needs to put their child in preschool there is no requirement do folk really think that 15hours extra is going to turn a 3yr old into some sort of genuis and those poor sah children are going to be deprived if that was the case all children now who are in paid for nursery would be at an advantage educationally

Pensions!?
Ha!
I do wonder how this all came about you know?
It's just wrong that women are working ft and coming out with nothing but stress and worry at the end of every month.
Will we ever see subsidised workplace crèches?
Sibsidised childcare for caring professions liketeachers, drs and nurses? We would be stuffed if they couldn't turn up to work!
God knows what the answer is, but it's such a mess ATM.
I really feel for wohps who are in this position.

This is probably going to be about the ONLY extension rather than cut to provision and support for families with young children.

This is typical divide and rule as per usual. As a WOHP I agree SAHPs are economically undervalued, but please, OP see this as a positive thing, even if it won't help you personally (though if on Maternity Leave you will presumably still qualify) It is far from enough, but it will help low paid families a bit.

so, 30 hours free childcare for WOHM parents? fine but what about parents with school age children, there is no help for those in the school holidays and after school? That is a significant expense and major stress for parents - i am looking for work now having been a SAHM for a considerable time. Its a worry.

Oh I dont!
I know I have done the right thing for my family.

Mrs Jay i disagree, i was a sahm and my dd benefitted hugely from nursery, she just did mornings but she loved it and it made the transition to school much easier.