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 are you deliberately ignoring my questions to you? You made a MASSIVE statement about managing fees and I would really like to hear your reasons for you belief. I have stated my case how managing is damaging, I would like to hear yours.

Parents are not treated equally. When both parents work they will be given free childcare and get to keep all their salary. Whereas when one parent stays at home for a while to look after their children they sacrifice their whole salary. I think the government should either give a certain amount of money to the care of each child that can be used towards childcare or towards caring for them yourself or give nothing to anybody. If people have children they should expect to either look after them or have to pay for someone else to. It is unfair that couples who don't look after their children themselves will get their childcare paid for and couples with a SAHP get nothing towards their care even though they are likely to be loving on less money with only one salary.

I would give every child say £200 (depending on household income) towards their care a month. Use it how you like. Nobody works for free. Nobody does it to be a great person. People do it for money.

I'm not trying to get into sahm v wohm divide either. I have seen that having a sahm is beneficial to many kids (not always) but it's not an option for me.

I don't need the extra hours as such myself, and would accept it if I fell wrong side of means cut off. Just debating what the point of the additional hours is.

I worked after Ds1 was born and he attended a nursery for 3 days a week, then I became a SAHM but we still paid for him to go to a nursery 1 day a week to socialise him with other children.

When he was 3 we withdrew him from the paid nursery and he qualified for the 15 hours in a preschool attached to a primary school.

When I had Ds2 I was (and still am) a SAHM. I paid for him to go to a playgroup for 2 hours when he was 2 because I wanted him interacting with other children and not just the usual people we saw at soft play/meeting up with other SAHMs and their children.

When he was 3 he had the 15 hours free in a preschool. I believe the 15 hours educational setting benefited both my sons.

I do not believe any SAHM requires the additional 15 hours "childcare" element. If you want it, then you should pay for it.

And I know lots of women for whom this would make all the difference in terms of getting back to work while their skills are still current. Waiting til kids are at school can mean skills are all out of date and getting back to work is even harder.

I've not read the whole thread because I'm at the dentist! But I think this whole proposal is bollocks. Am particularly bewildered about why only parents of three and four year olds deserve help with childcare costs.

little

And anyone else that knows

Aren't the government talking about taking low paid minimum wage earners out of tax completely

Wouldn't that mean that those people are no longer contributing to any of the stuff you mentioned?

For what it's worth I think that 15 hours Free education is fine, sahm parents do not need 30hours free childcare (and most I know wouldn't take it)

But I do share the OPs concern, there is a poster on here who always says that words are important...I don't see it as too much stretch of the imagination for the government to "rename" the 15 hours education and make it childcare. From then it's only a hop skip and a jump away from taking it away from non working parents as "why do they need free childcare"

my children are through this stage...they are well old!!

littlemonsters some wahps dont contribute in taxes either due to not earning enough but they still use services and claim ctc and help with childcare. It costs us more as a society to enable some people to work than what it would cost to support them as a SAHP,

Littlemonsters - our ooh school club is £14 per day, so a mum on minimum wage would be spending potentially a third of her wages on childcare for one child. Whilst i agree that the cost of holiday childcare is a part of the household finances it is ridiculously expensive - £150 a week for the ones advertised at ours DD's school, maybe a child minder would be cheaper? Although these tend to only run during school hours so then there is no after school provision - argggghhhhhhhhhh. (i live in south east but not london - thank God)

I honestly don't know how people on an average wage, let alone minimum wage, cope. I currently help my DP out on site (hes a builder) during school hours (getting quite good at this building malarky! ) and then have an early morning/evening cleaning job. This fits in wiht the family - although i am a biochemist "by trade" i couldnt find work that fitted around my family and i don't have family back up anymore. I don't work with DP during the holidays. I think once i get a job then DP will hopefully be able to work around the holidays so we will actually have it easier than many families. With DD1 my parents were fit enough to be able to take care of her and i worked long hours, plus went to university - If i am absolutely honest my relationship with DD1 suffered for it.

Little monsters can i also pick up on your last comment there, whilst i wholeheartedly agree with you that women absolutely should follow careers, i don't actually think being forced to sacrifice family life just to stay on the career ladder is the right way to go. That is probably the reason why many SAHP end up going back to work before they would have liked to. What about investing in getting women who have had career breaks back into useful and fulfilling careers - realistically i know things move on, i was in that sort of field but have found it impossible to step back on the career lasdder. There are schemes available but they are as rare as rocking horse shit and only really there for people who were high flyers in the first place. Sorry, i don't mean to sound like im constantly disagreeing with you, just that you raise some good points that i can see the other side of.

When I read threads like this, I start to see why some people think the state should stay out of everything personal because it is almost impossible to get it right. Lowest ever taxes and everything paid for by individuals. Perhaps nobody would need free childcare if they only paid tax at 10%

headinmyhands I didn't bother replying originally because 1. You called my comment stupid, 2. You didn't seem to realise it was in response to a whole load of other comments So you missed my point.

I said what I said about needing free childcare in response to all the comments about SAHP not needing childcare. I'm sure there are wOHP couples struggling after paying childcare as well as those who aren't. The bigger point I was making is that those who are saying it's totally appropriate to be means tested on the basis of hours worked seem to disagree about it being means tested on income.
You also seemed to miss the bit where I said I agree with extra support for low income families.

little when both dc's were at nursery I received around £10k of working childcare tax credits a year. I didn't even earn £10k let alone pay much / any tax. just because people work doesn't mean they are contributing. but I'm a LP so the system is set up so I have to work even though it costs the country more.

I suspect this new 30 hrs will be used to force more lp's back to work. never kind their mental & physical health and available support, just as long as they're in a job .

theoriginallem I was just replying to a pp who said that kids with an extra 15 hrs would be at an advantage to kids who got 15 hrs nursery is amazing for preschoolers id have it compulsary for all 3yr old but it is optional nobody has to send their dc if they dont want iyswim

Why is it sacrificing family life to return to work as a mother? Unless you have a job of 70/80 hours a week there is still plenty of time for family life and work.

Strange how all the husbands funding a non working parent aren't accused of being selfish and sacrificing family time as there wage is needed to allow the other the choice of not working.

Yes some working parents won't pay tax but they may in future as they increase hours or get a promotion etc. Stayig in work makes it much easier to move jobs or climb higher compared to taking years out of the workplace. Why then should there be help to get back in when the active choice was made to stop work. Or course most will have to start over again in the workplace but that's obvious from the moment you leave. Many never had a job in the first place to return to so many didn't sacrifce a salary to start with.

Daft idea to pay people to look after their own children, it's just what you do as a parent. What benefit would it have to society, none. It wouldn't make anybody a better parent.

oh, then i agree with you then mrsjay

I haven';t actually answered the OP, i think YABU but i think the money should be spent differently.

Why is it anymore daft than paying someone else to look after them when the parent in question earns less than the cost of that childcare? In that case would it be "worse" to support them to stay home and then return to work at a later date?

Daft idea to pay the childcare of couples earning megabucks when it has no impact on their decision to return to work etc etc etc.

If you can afford to SAH then you don't need free childcare. You can either look after your child yourself or pay for it. I do not understand why SAHPs think that they need childcare anyway - the point of SAH is to provide childcare! Many people SAH purely because they can't afford childcare and might be happy to work (and pay taxes) if the childcare was cheaper. This is about helping people back into work (which in the long run is better for everyone) rather than facilitating a lifestyle choice. However I think actively looking for work should qualify for the free childcare too. In some areas there aren't many jobs, and then there's things like redundancy - people shouldn't lose the whole fabric of their lives just because they lose their job. At the least there should be some kind of wind down period.

I agree with other posters that it should be related to household income though - an easy way would be to link it to receipt of child benefit - if you don't get that then you don't get free childcare. Or, if you want a lower threshold, tax credits. But I think that would be very harsh.

I don't think anyone is arguing that SAHP need childcare. I think people are suggesting that they also might need financial support.

Come on most sahp give up a salary and take the financial hit.I don't buy the sahp don't have jobs to give up,they do.

And as for work not paying tax doing it because they will eventually what utter tosh.I never will unless I get a humongous pay rise.

I agree with the 15 hours for sahp,they should get that for education but don't need more however I strongly disagree with wealthier families getting this and truly believe students should get it.Study generally leads to higher salaries which are more likely to produce tax revenue.

workers

I called it a stupid comment because that's What it is. We're not classed as 'low' earners, we earn about £100 PA too much as a couple to be given that 'title' and we are about as far from 'high' earners as you could be without being low earners.

We manage to pay nursery because we have to. We have had some very hairy times over the past few years due to paying nursery over bills. If he didn't go to nursery we can't work, if we don't work we can't live. 30 hours would have been a godsend, bloody hell even 15 would have been but we didn't qualify for 2 year funding as we earn low, just not low enough.

Your idea that, because we have managed, we shouldn't need help is ridiculous. We managed, we near starved, became unwell, had to 'steal' with permission nappies, existed not lived, near split with yhe stress of it all but it's ok.....because we managed.