Why do parents working 16 hours need 30 hours free childcare?

[shaggedthruahedgebackwards]

Even if you have a long commute then I can't see why more than about 20 hours should be necessary?

Surely it would make more sense to fund a smaller number of hours properly instead of promising 30 hours but not funding it properly?

As I recall when mine were pre-school age, we got 15 free hours once they were 3, for which we were very grateful. We needed 3 full days childcare so obviously paid the difference from our income.

I'm all for supporting parents to work but 30 hours seems totally excessive for the majority of parents.

I know there are plenty of parents who do work full time and therefore do next 30+ hours childcare but it seems fair that parents should have to pay a chunk of the childcare themselves and somewhere between 15 and 20 hours free is a pretty generous subsidy surely?

I agree properly funded nursery places should be for parents working full time, as a SAHM I feel I don't need childcare and if I did I could afford it I send my son for the 15hours but I would prefer parents who work full time to get my funding, just as if you are only working 16hours you don't need 30hours free childcare. It seems such a waste of money.

"Why on earth should the tax payer subsidise those earning £100k"

Because universal provision is a good leveller? Because the people paying more tax are funding these schemes in the first place and it's unfair to expect them to receive nothing in return. Because someone earning £100k a year is taking home somewhere around £4.5k a month and very likely has childcare costs of over £1k per month per child (I know my own are just north of £1k for the one in full time nursery). So could easily be spending 50% of Take home pay on childcare.

Being a hard-bitten cynic, I fully expect that when Universal Credit takes the place of working tax credits, they will expect everyone to be working a minimum of 30 hours pw. They just don't want people whingeing that they can't do 30 hours because of lack of child care.

They won't be happy until everyone is a full-time, tax paying wage slave, except for the rich.

Because the people paying more tax are funding these schemes in the first place and it's unfair to expect them to receive nothing in return.

That's not how society works though is it?
We pay tax which is use for the good of all not so that we get our share back. If I'm in good health I'm grateful I don't need the NHS but don't begrudge it to those who do or expect a refund.

I'd much rather see all this money targeted at those children (not parents) who need it most.

One thing we do better here in Mexico.

We have government provided Kinderschool from the age of three. My dgd loves it as the teachers are excellent and properly qualified. And people who never received a proper education are more likely to be poor and unable to supplement their child's school education, so it is very useful.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies

Perhaps a more complex issue then I realised when I posted my OP!

Very interesting to read everyone's opinions and experiences

And I'm actually pretty left wing but I do think if you have kids then you need to take a bit of responsibility for their emotional and mental development and not just expect the state to pay and do the work for you.

But for those parents who don't, it's their children, and therefore society as a whole, that suffers.

DoJo Well said. I hate that approach. If a good-for-nothing drunkard has children then society would just leave them to it and hard luck to the children and society when they grow up.

DoJo, yes it is the kids who need the help and we have to get away from thinking it is OK for them to be left to suffer because their parents don't deserve the help.

I am using it to work two days and hopefully study too. Without these hours I wouldn't be able to afford to study and improve my work prospects and my earning potential.

I am very surprised that the threshold is £100,000 which does seem stupidly high.

In all honesty, I think the fact that I don't automatically equate being 'unemployed' with being uneducated, unmotivated and being so disinterested in your kids that you can't even be bothered with educating or socialising them; and especially that I don't automatically equate being unemployed with being a 'good-for-nothing drunkard' (because that's obviously exactly the same thing ) probably means that I just don't stereotype the unemployed as much as some of you seem to do. So yes, I don't believe that being unemployed automatically means you need free educational hours for two year olds, because I actually have enough faith in most unemployed people I know to think that are capable of managing some simple educational and socialising of their kids without support. It's a real jump in my opinion to automatically assume 'unemployed' = 'incapable of basic parenting'.

My 2 year old gets the 2 year funding and my nearly 1 year old probably will too.

She has come on leaps and bounds but she goes to a childminders rather than a nursery.

We also go to groups 2 mornings a week.

I'M struggling to find a nursery to take her on now that I thinks he is ready for it

Why do people who earn up to £100,000k a year need free childcare? My dsis is minted. Merc, 7 bed house etc yet they now get free childcare etc because her dh who's self employed pays himself mum wage but huge bonuses (£50k+) every 6 months. My dsis earns a huge wage. They have staff! They now have free childcare!

I can't understand how this can be happening. I work in Social Care and see desperate poverty every day. It's not right!

It's a real jump in my opinion to automatically assume 'unemployed' = 'incapable of basic parenting'.

Except it's not. The children starting school who are unable to use the toilet, who don't know how to turn the pages of a book because they've never been read to, who can't do basic things that would be expected at their age are statistically more likely to be from a low income family. It's not people assuming or judging or stereotyping.

Oh, obviously excluding SEN.

Rink- agree. I think the bigger issue is the threshold is way too high. People who earn near £100,000 should not be getting free childcare. How can the government afford that when we can't afford so many other things? This threshold is way too high.

I hope they would have a conscience and not apply.

Its a REALLY stupid policy that has been incredibly badly thought out.
If the child care was added onto tax credits for those in need
it could be easily targeted
save a stack of money
and stop nurseries going broke - which lots will this autumn
(as the maths by the civil servant twonks did not understand AE or ERS Ni)

They need it so that they'd actually vote Tory at the last election and prop this government up. Cynical but true.

Unlike Corbyn's silly Student Loan policy that most students saw through as being pointless

Pre school education has a massive accumulator effect IF WELL TARGETED
this policy is not at all targeted

I think it does have a lot to do with Universal credit. Each commitment is different but it seems there is guidance. If there are no other factors such as the parent being ill or disabled. Quotes are from website link (citizens advice)

Once the youngest child is one year old the lone parent or lead carer has to go into Group 2. Work-focused interview only requirement
"you have to go to regular interviews with your work coach at the Jobcentre to get support with preparing for work in the future. You won’t have to look for work, be available for work or prepare for work now"

When youngest is two
‘work preparation group’ - you have to do activities to prepare for work, eg attend training, do some work experience, write a CV, go to interviews with your work coach at the Jobcentre to help you find or stay in work. You won't have to actually search for work or be available for work

When child is 3+
"‘all work-related requirements group’ - you have to do all you can to find a job or a higher paid job. This includes looking for jobs, applying for jobs, going to interviews, etc. You have to be ready and available to take up work straight away"

"f you’re responsible for a child aged 3 or over, you’ll probably be in the ‘all work-related requirements group’. Remember to talk to your work coach about what activities are realistic for you. For example, you can ask to limit the hours you look for work because you have to pick your children up from school every day. Your work coach should consider your requests and be reasonable."

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/interview/claimant-commitment-what-group/

Before I write this, let me be clear I'm not moaning as I know I'm in a fortunate position but wanted to add another few reasons as to why this system is a nonsense. oH and I both work. He earns over 100k; I earn about a fifth of what he does as I only work part time.
We obviously don't qualify for the 30 hours, only the 15.
Our friends both work full time, both just below 100k each so their combined income is almost double ours but they qualify and we don't. Another nonsense of the system.
When we had DD1 the universal 15 hours covered all of the 2 days she attended nursery which was great.
By DD2 the nursery was struggling to fund the funded hours places so started charging extra for meals, pre 9am hours or post 5pm hours in order to recoup some of the shortfall. This meant we then had 2 children at nursery but the additional top ups meant that we were paying about an additional 50% of what a full day place would be.
Now that DS is at nursery (dd1 now at school) we have our two youngest at nursery but all the top up fees mean that not only do we pay top ups but the standard day rate has gone up too. I've gone from a monthly childcare bill of £375 per month for two children part time (partly subsidised by the 15 free hours) 5 years ago to a monthly bill of £695 today and that includes our 'free' hours and a sibling discount,
The nurseries are struggling so much to cover the shortfall that they have to charge more somewhere. I've now had to cut my hours back and change jobs as the outgoings for childcare (when you included wraparound care for DD1 at school) were now significantly more than I was earning so it was a nonsense to continue.
I still understand I'm in a very fortunate position but it's actually worked as an opposite effect for us to the one the government was promoting - I've had to reduce my working hours to cover the rising costs.
Oh but our almost £200k friends are simply enjoying a reduction to their nursery bills which they joked they used to upgrade their holiday flights.
Madness.

Just read my post back and doesn't quite make sense so just to clarify (can't work out how to edit posts - technological dunce here), should read 'they'd use' not 'they used'

sparkly
Your post makes total sense and shows how silly it is to be subsidising households in the top 1% (which you and your friends are)

THe funds should be thrown at exxrecluse to ensure that her child is ready to roll come year R

and even more, the children of parents who do not have the intellectual resources to support their children.

Being registered for tax credits can be easily tested
and giving the top- up through that system could be easily done

but the policy makers have no idea