We either value child care and those who provide it or we don't.
You don't say 'oh well you can afford it therefore you shouldn't be eligible for it to be free'.
Why? Because it still leaves a number of women up shit creek and it devalues their caring roles in society. It makes it harder for them day to day just because of petty spite and a lack of understanding of the implications.
It's not like they won't pay for this childcare. Taxes would have to rise to facilitate it. And the burden would fall on higher tax tax payers. But it would be shared across society and the role of women in our society actually valued and understood. It provides options though.
We need children. Society needs children. We have a demographic problem with a low birth rate which is creating future issues. We should value children.
As I said previously it also put some women in a vulnerable position where, if they are only minimum wage earners, it means some families have to pay to work because of childcare costs. This is ridiculous. Think of what is lost to society through this issue. Theres a whole group who become invisible to society and devalued. They may ultimately choose to stay at home but that should be a choice. It puts them in a position of being at risk from domestic violence and makes it harder to leave and it more difficult to rejoin the workforce at a later stage. This isn't in the interests of the country.
If they are an earner, it still puts them in a difficult position because of the greater pressure to provide and to juggle. As stated previously taken home pay for a single high earner can be much less than you think. Long term couples will be better off but in the initial stages it can leave you more financially vulnerable than people give credit for.
I live in an affluent area, and there is this hidden poverty issue that isn't often acknowledged. In recent years there's been a lot of families who have found themselves struggling even though on paper they are well off. The cost of living crisis has had an effect where if you budgeted 5 years ago for housing and bills fairly conservatively, you could still get caught out by interest rate rises, rent rises utility bills going through the roof and additional taxes. Particularly if your credit rating isn't as good as it could be. Families on middle income and good jobs have become unstuck due to being unable to move and reduce costs quickly (if you are renting, then finding a smaller property for less is a challenge if you are mortgaged there's equity issues and the speed of finding a buyer to cover your costs - and vitally you often need cash to move even if you are downsizing). Families on higher incomes are less vulnerable to this effect but they aren't immune either. My point here is also that reducing your costs is only possible if both people in a couple are onboard too...
Again domestic abuse can be an issue due to the risk of financial abuse and the woman finding herself paying childcare either in part or in full thus making it more difficult to save if she wishes to leave at some point in the future. Yes she could claim in a divorce and ultimately being reasonably well off, but this adds an extra barrier to getting to that stage in the first place. It's the interim period that's deeply problematic. A partner who refuses a divorce can make it exceptionally hard in these situations. It's one reason no fault divorces have been legalised but this is only one part of the picture. Even if it doesn't go that far there's cases on MN regularly where a woman doesn't have access to her partners funds, the house isn't in her name and she's told she has to pay childcare if she wants to work because their partner wants to control them. It isolates women if they are in a situation where they aren't allowed by partners to work. And it's harder for women to argue their corner if financially it is going to put you worse off if you do work.
This is about imbalances of power within relationships and how having children adds to that.
There is this sense that women who are better off do not need protection or are undeserving. The concept of them being better off is blind to the realities of financial and emotional abuse. It is blind to who has access to funds and controls them. It makes it harder to access support if you do leave because on paper you have assets because of means testing, which is fuck all good if you can't access it and you face a battle with an abusive partner who blocks it.
Basically it affects women's ability to be independent because child care is seen as a luxury expense which parents should be solely responsible for rather than society valuing child care and children as important to the future of the country and it's development and how it reduces the risk to a group of women who often get overlooked because they are regarded as privileged with no concept of how they might also be much more vulnerable than many realise. There is this sense that domestic abuse isn't something that happens to middle class women.
Free childcare for all reduces many of these risks and as I say the financial burden would still fall on those on the highest incomes. The main difference is spreading the cost so the impact of having children isn't so profound as a jump and because it reduces the risk of financial abuse.
The 'how' of who pays for childcare actually matters.