Am I just naive re 30 hours funding and principles?

[resipsa]

I've found out this week that 2 families I know well are planning to claim 30 free hours childcare even though one parent (mum in both cases) does not work. Both of their partners own their own businesses and 'pay' the wives even though, by their own confession, they do no work for the business. Surely this is not the point of the extended free hours which are supposed to encourage non-working (yeah, I get it, non-tax paying) parents into the workforce? Am I naive to be shocked? I know Mumsnet is a 'mind your own business' place but this is just wrong and makes it harder for everyone else trying to work while their children are young.

makes it harder for everyone else trying to work while their children are young

How?

People will always exploit loopholes and such things for their own gain. People are free to start up their own business and do the same.

I know it doesn’t seem very fair, but that’s how universal benefits work.

You could argue that free childcare has more benefits for both mother and child than simply allowing the parent to go to work.

The hours are actually for the benefit of the child.

The 'principle' of 30 hours funding was very clear and simple from the outset. It was never intended to be fair. It was a political Con trick to win an electoral bidding war by grabbing the votes of a combination of desperate/gullible/ignorant/greedy parents. Childcare providers gave very clear warnings at the time than it would not create a fair system, and would inflict severe damage on the sector. They were castigated and ridiculed for 'being negative' but now we're just beginning to reap the whirlwind.

Itsabajoom said what I was thinking

The guidance is quite clear that both parents (save special circumstances) should be 'in work' so it's not exploiting a loophole, it's fraud if you claim to be in work if you are not. Are we all really so morally bankrupt that the response is to the effect of 'start your own business and do the same'?

And the 'harder for us all' point is obvious. It's only free to those obtaining it fraudulently. Simone has to pay and those funds would be better invested in education generally. Surely the universal 15 hours granted if only 1 parent works is adequate to 'benefit the child'?

Not Simone but someone...

Not for the benefit of the child. There is no evidence that 30 hours of childcare will cause better outcome for the child compared to 15 hours. It's about the Conservatives serving so-called 'hard working' parents. You can report them.

That would be awkward in the playground

30 hours free is surely aimed at people with a stay at home home parent as it encourages these parents to send their kids to nursery —- as it’s those kids that are left behind in the early years by the kids of working parents.

I thought every one got 30 free hours aged 3?

No they don’t Hollow

You need both to be working and earn less than £100K. If one parent doesn't work, you get 15.

30 isn't aimed at those families as they get 15 anyway. It's aimed at getting both to work (not pretending to work).

@TeddyBear errr no? Children don’t get ‘left behind’ at that age. They all develop at different speeds and nursery isn’t really more or less suitable to their development (if anything I would imagine it’s slightly detrimental). My children both went to nursery at that age (no 30 hours fubdingslthough it would have been very easy to fraudulently claim it using my husband’s business) and honestly, it was just out of convenience. In some ways it benefited them, in some ways it was slightly detrimental.

She is employed and earning the required amount. Sadly it's not really in the spirit of claiming childcare, or paying fair taxes.

But they are employed? And presumably paying taxes on their earnings? Just because they don’t work very hard for their money is actually neither here nor there if a business is legitimately and legally paying them a wage.

How are you 'employed' if you receive money for no work? Is that some legal definition (rider: I'm a lawyer)? Seems like a gift to me meaning the criteria to claim are not met. Are people really so unbothered by others' skewed moral compasses? I fear for my two if so...

They won’t be paying tax on that wage! It’s not very much and they'll be earning below the personal allowance. And then claiming 30 hours.

It is a bloody cheek. Providers are struggling to make ends meet with accepting this funding and usually limit the amount of spaces they offer it to. This means demand is higher for fewer places. Those who actually need it may lose out.

They only have to be earning the equivalent of 16 hours of minimum wage, so if they earn that for one hours work, then they can claim 30 hours

Yup it's one of the many things I don't like about this scheme. It my area it's made chain nurseries more expensive and small nurseries/ childminders / not for profit providers go out of business so reducing choice considerably.

I agree with you OP. It's not in the spirit of the scheme and just because you can do it doesn't mean it's right.

Sadly I was born a rule follower and it just isn't in my nature to do things like this. If it were I may well be more successful in many aspects of life!

Previous posters are confusing the free hours for. 2 year olds for very low income/no income families which is for the benefit of the child. And the free 30 hours for 3 year olds which is for working parents only.