Free childcare to foreigners, unemployed and single parents

This is happening in the UK. I wondered if anyone feels its ethical.

Basically any vulnerable members of a community will be able to receive 15hrs a week free child care when the child is 2yrs old.

But the question remains, why do the full time working British parent who have a toddler and cant afford any child care, and subsequently end up having to get their parents to also look after the kid whilst they are at work, NOT get any entitlements .

Shouldn't the vulnerable HAVE to account for themselves? And do their job as every other parent does?

Well apparently its been happening in the USA for quite some time now. And they have researched that these vulnerable children end up on equal par to other children when they eventually join them in school.

So okay the child has better education, but how does this improve the childs home life? Realistically, the poor child is still going back to its " ignorant" " ill" or " druggy" etc parents .

So they are back to square one. Or maybe not?

Any views?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Also want to add the amount of working parents who have complained to me that they .. literally cannot afford childcare is astounding. They are the unheard struggling parents... I think, in many ways.

And because they have a lower income, minimal wage. They are ignored. In my experience.

In the US, it's no better. Prior to my wife developing her long term medical issues, she worked, of course. Generally though? Jobs didn't last too long. Not that they wouldn't have worked out or that she didn't like them. However, when the lowest child care charges over 50% of what she made per week, every week? At what point does it become paying to work?

The people getting subsidies will never hear of it being said..but they did this. The generous Government payouts to them for daycare raised the market price and average costs for EVERYONE ELSE too. Except of course, we can't match what Uncle pays for the 'disadvantaged', so we're priced out of the market as parents, because our own Government has subsidized prices right into math which doesn't work.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


The idiocy also occurs Europe wide, including Norway where I'm currently situated. They give all these benefits away, but those who truly need them never get them. My friend worked hard and long to get his college degree. He had to live in a small one room apartment and live off of instant noodles just so he could afford his license.

All the time, foreigners who had done nothing to be awarded what they were given, were given a free car, license and apartment. How is that fair? (Of course, "free" means tax payer money. So my friend, fresh out of school and working his butt off was paying for THEIR "free" car, license and apartment.) All the meantime he's stressing to get by.

Same thing in your situation in the U.K. These "free" benefits aren't free. People who are already stressing out trying to get child care for their children are helping to foot the bill. In my opinion, foreigners (that's me in Norway for example) should never get more benefits than the citizens of the country. It creates resentment. Not only that, the citizens have paid into the system for the benefits.

What worries me is don't you think this kind of encourages people to " breed" more?

If someone else is partially looking after them. Sure they will have less worries... but it isn't exactly helping folk become more responsible ... in my mind.

I don't get the governments motivation, this is going to cost a lot of money.

And does every child need to have maths and English up to a high standard REALLY???

Is it soooo important. Why is intellectual capabilities... supposed to be such a wonderful thing, what about just BEING and doing the best one can.

I see it like this, i rather my tax money goes to a child from a poor background and whether it be the parents are alcoholics or drug addicts, or just fell upon bad times for whatever reason, then it be spent on bombs and weapons of war.

It means that child who was born into this world of no choosing of his own, maybe gets to spend at least 15 hours of normality once a week and see the world is not all bad.


If we don't look after the kids, what chance have we got as a species?


Just for the record, i paid for all my kids schooling.

reply to post by snapperski


Yes I understand
. I am not sure why they included foreigners on the list, maybe they want to force them to speak the English language earlier? Integrate which also cannot be a bad thing.

But you have to understand that those on lower incomes, cant actually afford child care.... so what about them? That's all.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Child care should be free to all children from 2 years up.

I also believe all children should be entitled to free hot school meals.

And longer schooling days.

Don't believe the hype that we can't afford it here in the UK, we have a massive inequity problem, and a culture of child neglect that goes back hundreds of years.

reply to post by snapperski


Yeah, I think in Wales they give free nursery to toddlers from 2yrs plus. For the parents who desire or need it - not everyone does.

But overall I believe they are entitled to it usually from 3yrs of age.

What's harder I think nowadays that, families are not as united, so the children don't have as many folk around them, who do their bit.

The thing is many grandparents HAVE TO look after their children's toddlers for them to be able to go to work, I don't think people realise how often this accurs. And the grandparents aren't always happy about this because they feel they have already raised their children, which they have. But the financial difficulties of their children mean there is no other option.

Both parents should not have to work. But we have created a system where both parents must work in order to pay taxes for those who do not.
It's not going to end well.

Something just crossed my mind. We (UK and US both) have very serious and near crippling unemployment problems. It's becoming more clear now than ever before as true numbers are starting to seek benefits many never thought they'd have in their lives.

Where are all the people among those with big hearts and caring priorities? Aren't there a thousand or so among them all in England and a few thousand here who could be put to work at Government expense to give that child support?? We are supporting them EITHER WAY. I'm talking about drawing day care workers from among those already drawing the help now.

It seems to me it would help them AND fill a critical need in society. Ours and Yours. Of course, the first argument will probably be 'That's not government's job!'. Well.. B.S.. When they aren't running over every boundary and line imaginable for their own purposes already? Id give that argument serious weight. While law means nothing to these leaders? Well, they can fudge it for our BENEFIT for a change, eh?

I don't want to use any superlatives, so I think I'll settle for "Where are we going, and what are we doing in this handbasket?" Snapperski's position is becoming very common in the free, Western world, and leads to its death.

Yes, longer school days has it's attractions, but it costs more. So does free or reduced cost child care, and school meals. Likewise, health care, education, transportation, cell phones, housing, food, and even free money.

A recent study shows that in 35 US states, welfare pays better than the minimum wage.

Snapperski mentions there is inequity, which he appears to believe is a problem. The solution, in the minds of those holding positions similar to his, would be to take the majority of money from the "rich," and use it to buy things to give to the poor. Under this plan the poor have no incentive to work as they have everything they need, and the rich have no incentive to work as the extra money from working hard is taken from them.

Remember The Beatles' "I'm the Taxman?" "Nineteen for me and one for you." That was literally the case at the time, with a top tax rate of 95%. Consider the wealthy French who have left the country under the new tax scheme, thus providing less money for their government when the tax collectors thought they would be getting more.

I understand the feelings of compassion, but when instituted at the national level and expanded to meet the demands of the poor, it is the death of the freedom that country once enjoyed. The demands are limitless, and we're in the position that each new demand met makes the country poorer until everyone is working for the state under the orders of the Central Planning Committee.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


We live in a time were greed and selfishness supersedes morality, and we still keep teaching our kids to do this.

People of today live for today, and it will wipe us all out eventually.

America and the UK could easily afford to pay for all children education from start to finish and it would even make a dent in the budget, it would end the class divide in one swoop.

How much money has the UK and the US paid for wars in the last 10 years, just Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us nearly $6 trillion, that's $75,000 for each American and £48,000 per Brit.

You see were i'm going with this.

As i said before, children should be our priority as a species.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Dear wrabbit2000,

I wish I had seen your post prior to hitting the "reply" button. You're certainly correct that having the unemployed do something instead of doing nothing would be an improvement. I also applaud you for taking a different approach to the problem.

I am not going to argue with a cute little wrabbit like you, but I do have a general question.

Do you see this as part of a "If you don't work at a government assigned job, you don't get benefits" program? Basically, it would be an economic coercion plan, if I understand you.

Or, would it be a "The government will pay you so much for providing day care, that you will choose that over being on welfare" program?

I wonder what the day care recipient would have to pay under either of those plans.

Anyway, thanks for being the thought provoking wrabbit you are.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Do you see this as part of a "If you don't work at a government assigned job, you don't get benefits" program? Basically, it would be an economic coercion plan, if I understand you.

Or, would it be a "The government will pay you so much for providing day care, that you will choose that over being on welfare" program?

Actually? Neither on this day. Perhaps other days, I'd lean more to the former solution and then, maybe not these days. I'm getting tired and weary of the greed to the point of fixation of wealth for it's OWN sake. I'm so bloody tired of Alcohol bills for overseas Congressional junkets running HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars ..just so they could get drunk on our dime....but we can't afford Headstart for the children (and parents, that frees up to work as a side benefit).

We have the money for new billion dollar aircraft, but can't afford a daycare center. We can kill...but never nurture. (sigh)

I think I'm looking at this as more of a 'The resource is there already, it's doing nothing and going to waste. Let's use it!'. The people getting the work might find some self respect from earning their benefits with perhaps a bit more to make a "living wage" as people seem to have invented the term.

If all that isn't enough? Well how about the fact that the longer one sits unemployed right now, the more chance they NEVER get employed again. This gives them resume content and working experience to carry through these hard times for the period to come, when it may make ALL the difference.

(Carrot...rather than stick approach)

reply to post by charles1952



There may not be a reason to share your cake Charles, it is, after all, yours.
You probably baked it all yourself, in a oven of your construction, with ingredients you harvested yourself.
It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry child just how reasonable you are Charles.

reply to post by snapperski

Dear snapperski,

The idea of turning America into a much better place by re-directing money from Defense has almost become a cliche. I decided to take a look at the president's budget request presented in February of last year to see what the numbers looked like.

I assume you have no interest in cutting anything from: Health and Human Services, Social Security, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Interior, the Corporation for National and Community Service, or the interest we owe. The spending in just those areas is $2.4026 trillion, or slightly over 63% of total federal spending.

The Department of Defense expenditures were planned for a shade under $0.673 trillion, or 17.7% of total spending.
www.ask.com...

Feel free to eliminate the military completely, but be prepared to find employment for the people involved. The government is paying their salaries now, putting them on unemployment will just mean the government will have to pay them from a different account. Oh, and find work for those in related industries who are let go. And forget coming to the aid of people being killed in places like Syria, or any other spot where mass murder is occurring. Don't forget to tell the world that the United States may now be taken over by force, our defense will be the police and militia groups.

And all of this to provide education? Does history teach us nothing? Spending on education has gone up to incredible levels. My school district spends over $10,000 a year per pupil in K-12 alone, and this fall they will raise local taxes again. Even with that, most of our students are not prepared to enter college with out taking remedial courses. Study after study shows the US is not teaching students compared to the rest of the modern world. Increasing education spending has the primary effect of providing teachers and administrators (government employees) with higher pay.

I'm sorry, but I'm not yet convinced by your proposed solution.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wrabbit2000

We have the money for new billion dollar aircraft, but can't afford a daycare center. We can kill...but never nurture. (sigh)

Exactly.

I'm so bloody tired of Alcohol bills for overseas Congressional junkets running HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars ..just so they could get drunk on our dime....but we can't afford Headstart for the children (and parents, that frees up to work as a side benefit).

We have the same problem in the UK, but our pigs at the trough, spends millions on just the bar bill.

It makes me sick.

Here in London they are closing hospitals and schools fire stations, telling us we have to tighten the budget, all the while giving themselves a 10% pay rise and plenty for bombs all over the bloody world, i could go on, but i won't bore you on British political career pigs.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, i believe investing in people, not banks, not multinational corporations, or aggressive military, but people.

America lives in a state of extreme paranoia, now you say defense budget, but is it really a defense budget or fancy political terminology.

Or what it really is, a imperialist army the likes history has never seen.

The world's top 5 military spenders in 2012.


Take a look at this Charles, and tell me you are investing enough into education.
Its all well and good being proud of your massive army, until you see you are 13th in the world Education Index.

And all of this to provide education? Does history teach us nothing? Spending on education has gone up to incredible levels. My school district spends over $10,000 a year per pupil in K-12 alone, and this fall they will raise local taxes again.

So is $10,000 per term to much for a child to be educated, but yet its ok to spend at least $ mill per solider, it should be the other way round.
Everything is backwards, like footballers getting millions per week and doctors and nurse's struggling to get by.
And it the mindset you have Charles, that has got us here, in this neoliberal post democratic society.

I hate the world were leaving our kids.

History will look down on us.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


seems to me the free childcare should be for working parents, why would unemployed need childcare,,, are they too busy being unemployed to have time for their kids... ???