ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Angry another attack on sahm mum!(364 Posts)
I was worried about new childcare arrangements and its got high limit earn up to 150k but both parents have to be working.
Im guessing from this article the current childcare voucher scheme being phased out
where exactly are these term time jobs and cheap flexible childcare.
where are all these jobs that dont seem to require person to be fully flexible.
had 1st in 2006 went back full time when she was one in 2007.
fulltime place 52weeks nursery was 9000 a year you can claim relief up to 6k.
quit work after no 2 used vouchers for preschool education who had reduced to 1day a week doing nursery.
child no 2 started 1day a week from 18months and nursery been really good for her development. its £40 a day so 160 on 4week month.
husband used couchers as he works fulltime saves us a little.
child 2 now gets 15hour funding which helps.
was hoping to start child no 3 and use childcare vouchers now looks like cant do that and might have to wait until fnding term after 3rd birthday which think is bit late.
To make matters worse child no 2 has september birthday so missed this sept school year by 16days so have year extra paying childcare.
we lucky we dident lose child benefit as at moment we below 50k
we lost £10 a week childcare tax credits last april.
feel sorry for sahm mum whos husnand earns over 50k loses cb and now childcare vouchers yet they say preschool education is important and good for educational outcomes.
we very much feeling squeezed middle tonight as we just about get by each month as we privatly rent too.
But OP it IS fair. Those that need childcare costs support get it and those that dont dont.
I don't know why SAHP perceive not being subsidized by people working as being vilified.
I'm interested in the way people talk about the childcare vouchers. Conversation with my mum today revealed that she was under the impression that we could claim £243 (or whatever it exactly is) each as actual funds for childcare, she didn't realise that it was just our salary, taken off pre-tax so that the benefit is the tax relief. She thought the Gov actually gave us £500 a month toward childcare (the cost of which she is horrified at). I haven't done exact figures yet as to how the changes will affect us but ultimately, we chose to have kids, and whilst I will happily accept any help that's going, I don't think I am "entitled" to it in any moral sense, only a legal one. I have no idea why SAHP would think they should get help with childcare costs that they don't in fact, incur.
As a SAHM I don't think I should be entitled to child care costs. I stay at home, so obviously I don't need them. What I am pissed off about is the fact that if one parent works and the other stays at home, they pay more tax than the two parent family who work, lose child benefit if the working parent is a higher rate tax payer and the working family gets tax relief for child care. I appreciate that two parents working have child care costs, but I don't appreciate that two parents working earning up 100k need child benefit more than one family working earning 50k. Also, what happens if one parent needs to study or is doing voluntary work to gain experience for future paid work? Surely they will require child care too. It just seems as if the government is sticking two fingers up at the family with a SAHP.
Exactly, ihate. The whole withdrawal of child benefit has been a gigantic disaster - and I say this as someone who gets no child benefit due to DH's status and nationality, we could really have used it in the early days (and would be below the cut off now so would still get it). Doing it by single earner rather than household income really is kicking SAHP when they're down (and I've always been a WOHP).
I think we can all agree that it is grossly unfair that 2 people on, say, 48K are better off than a household with one earner of 50K. Very many people are having to take that one up the arse at the moment and you are most certainly not alone.
BUT you need to get some perspective.
My DP earns 16K. Yep, 16K.
This means that I HAVE to work, no two ways about it. It's unlikely we'd be able to afford childcare on my earnings if I worked daytime hours, so I'm a SAHM during the day and then I work 16-24 hours evenings and weekends on top. I also have no family living locally.
All those who say lazy sahm such easy life its hectic always figured would have more time but 4school runs today,parenjts evening, gym, foodshopping, dcoctor surgery , preschool admin, housework and cooking. Its a shift that never seems to end.
Honestly you need to stop moaning as from where I'm standing you've got it pretty good.
I don't think you'll find many people on here suggesting that the way the CB thing was done is remotely equitable. Its so obviously flawed and unfair I'm amazed it actually was thought of and brought in. We are one of those who fall into the category of two highish incomes but each below the cut off to lose it. I doubt it'll make anyone on here feel better but we are not knocking back the champagne paid for with everyone elses' taxes. We barely break even every month after paying a £1300 pm mortgage on a not great house in not great area, £250 council tax, nearly £1000 childcare, £400 in fuel etc. Interesting point about those who need childcare so they can train or study for future employment - I wonder if they'll think of that? Its a very good point.
I really don't get why SAHM's are feeling penalised (and this is coming from a SAHM of two children!)
Help me understand, as I'm not sure if it's just me being thick or not.
I'm a SAHM. Have been for several years now, after having my second child. I WANT to go back to work, but I've always said the price of childcare with two children is extortionate and I'd be virtually paying to go to work - any money would be straight on the childcare and I'd be left nothing and paying out of my own pocket to just GO to work and that's not the point!
So if they're helping people who WANT to get back to work, then surely that's a good thing?!
They SHOULD be helping people who want to get back to work.
WTF would I want to be paid as a SAHM for?! (No I'm not rich, I'm terminally skint before anyone asks.)
It's a case of can't please everyone all of the time so somebody's always going to be pissed off!
LiseYates, it just seems to me that they are hammering the same gorup of people over and over. The SAHP with one higher rate tax payer lose CB, whereas the dual income family on same earnings and much more don't. Also, the single income family pay more tax than the dual income family. My youngest is not 2 yet and I will go back to work when he gets his 15 hours, but I was hoping to try and retrain or do some vouluntary work as I've been a SAHM for a few years and feeling a bit rusty with my skills and lack of confidence from being absent from the work place. This scheme won't help parents to do this, as they won't be classed as working. Also it doesn't come in until 2015 and my youngest will be nearly 5, so we won't be eligible any way. By the time they offer help for the under 12s in 2020, my oldest 2 will be over 12. It just feels like we are constantly kicked up the arse by ozzie and co.
There are some major issues with these proposals, mainly the dual income/single income business, just like with the CB cuts. However, this is an early proposal and it says in the link that it is a work in progress.
But, OP, you seem to be generally pissed off with your own personal childcare situation and are lumping everything in together. The age/birthday issue, for example - many, many people have the same thing. It has nothing to do with the proposed changes. I have a July child - childcare costs hugely reduced - and a January child who won't get his 15 hours until two full terms later than his brother. It's just one of those things - they system has to be administered in some way.
And no-one is saying that SAHMs are "lazy", just that they don't, generally, have the same absolutely unavoidable need for childcare in the same way that a family with 2 working parents do.
Yes, a bit of time to yourself is nice. I currently work 3 days a week and also do some freelancing. I occasionally (perhaps once every couple of months) pay for an extra day of childcare if I've got a lot of freelance work on. I consider that child-free time a bit of a luxury, even if I'm working most of the day.
I don't think most of your gripes can really be put down to the proposed changes to the childcare scheme - it's just the same, everyday things that most of us have to deal with - too much to do and not enough time to do it. All the things you say you have to do during the day - working parents have to do most of that too. Families with two working parents aren't getting any more time to themselves than families with SAHMs.
Unfortunately, anyone who wants child-free time when they aren't actually working is going to have to treat it as a luxury and decide whether or not they are prepared to pay for it, whether they are a SAHM or a part-time working parent like me - full-time working parents don't have that option anyway.
mam29, I'm sorry, but you say your 2 yr old needs to be in nursery to help speech develop and to socialise, now unless he has other problems that you haven't mentioned, he can get these things from going to parent and toddler groups or surestart schemes, if you have them in your area.
When I said ds needs to go to nursery it is because it is recommended by all his drs and therapists, and it is the best way for him to access various therapies.
However when my dds were his age I did what all the other sahm's I know did, which is play with them at home and go to various groups.
I think the point is that the government is acting as though there are only two modes to parenthood: employed or sahm/d. In fact, due to the economic situation many parents who want to work but can't find a paid job are looking to the voluntary sector to fill the gap (skills, experience etc) in the meantime. Many voluntary jobs are just as challenging & time consuming as paid work. Is it fair that people in this situation would be classed as 'not working' & therefore not eligible for this scheme? Or is having their lack of pay compounded by continuing to suffer the full cost of childcare massively discriminatory? Also, what about those who are also working long hours for nothing setting up businesses, in the hope that they might one day earn a salary? Don't they need help with childcare just as urgently, if not moreso than those with a steady job & regular income? & yet these are the entrepreneurs this government goes on about helping to kick start the economy.
OP whatever the inconsistencies if CB and new childcare payments your moaning is extraordinary. You made a decision to have 3 kids.
You know childcare isn't cheap and from the sound of it you don't want to be at home with them, it was your decision no?
Got this from inland revenue website and depressed myself further
You pay tax at these rates on taxable income above your Personal Allowance.
Rate2011 to 2012 tax year2012 to 2013 tax year2013 to 2014 tax year
Basic rate 20%£0 to £35,000£0 to £34,370£0 to £32,010
Higher rate 40%£35,001 to £150,000£34,371 to £150,000£32,011 to £150,000
Additional rate 50% (45% from 6 April 2013)Over £150,000Over £150,000Over £150,000
each year the amount changes so in 2013 the rate at which you pay higher rate tax is £32 I thourght it was income over 40k,
so hubby earns 41 maybe 42 with annual increase if lucky. guessing with raising tax allowance to 10k first 10k is free.
22k is 20% so £4400 tax.
32 to 42k is taxed 40% so 40% of 10k=£4000
total tax paid £8400 tax not even worked out ni.
he doesnt have a pension,
does have 160childcare vouchers before tax saving us whopping 40quid a month.
Lost 40quid a month last april as anyone above 3k wont get tax credits or universil credit.
lets take another example
a working couple on 13k a year each why 13k as combined 26k the average salary benefits now capped at.
They have 2kids as thats average kids
1st 10k each tax free allowance so 20k not taxed.
The next 3k basic rate 20% 600 each so pay combined tax of £1200.
get child benefit of £132 amonth
tax credits-not sure possibly.
not sure if they better off under tax credit chailcare element or new schome which would pocket then £1200 per child so £2400 per year.
so they paid 600 tax.
getting 1584 child benefit
£2400 child care
possibly housing if they rent or greater chance getting cheaper social housing.
take 3rd example couple on 60 1works sahm wife.
why 60 as limit for cb is tapered between 50k and 60k by 1%per £1000.
They also have 2kids.
60 well 1st 10k free.
next 22k is 20%=£4400
40%from 32 k to 60k 28k
40%28k= £11200 tax.
+the £4400 so pays total of £15600 tax.
loses £1584 annual child benefit for their 2kids.
not entitled to the £2400 childcare help.
thats not even including ni so in real terms net could be minus 20k escpecially if paying comtriburty pension too.
can you not see why they mad?
example 4 couple both earning on 49k
get 1st 10k free.
£4400 at basic rate.
17k at 40% 1700-£6800 each.
so pay each
6800+4400=£11200 eah or £20400 combined.
so their net income is approx just guessing as unsure how much ni is. just under 80k take home.
they get to keep £1584 cb
get £2400 childcare costs.
meaning 80k+1585+2400=84k to spend.
childcare for 2 kids approx 40quid a day in day nursery.
so 5*80=400 a week £1600 a month.
84k-16800 childcare=£67200 net and they need to keep cb aqnd subsidised childcare.
my husband being higher rate tax payer is paying more tax than 2low earning parents combined why shouldent just 1pqarent be allowed to use the vouchers?
wont even go in 150 who get 5%saving in income tax from april this year and get the 1200quid childcare per child.
Also if they wanted to buy 2nd home or buy house for room for pony then they could get interest free loan for remortgage.
wonder if new vouchers can be used in private school nursery/reception classes and boarding schools like current schemes?
ideal for the higher earner.
as for retraining I was fadt enought at 19 to go uni as labours drea wasent it did business degree as wasent sure what wanted to do. ended up retail management definatly not child freindly went back after 1st born insociable hours, low pay. stresseful. as hell and not good for my marriage either but i do iss working, adult company.
I wanted to go back uni retrain as social worker but 2nd degree 9grand tuition fees, not eligible for loan and no help with childcare whilst i studied and on placement so that idea scrapped.
We get 2300 net after all taken. we get by after rent, all bills paid everythings going up.
Only adavantages of being at home is helping dd1with homework school work as her last school was crap and she fell behind.
they contsantly sick latly so having to pick the up early.
they have activities hobbies they enjoy gym and ballet.
I use breckfast club and after school club as rimary and preschool are 1.2miles away from each other and cant be in 2places at one time plus I dont drive so takes me longer to get about buses are unrelaible and expensive.
If your DH earns £42k and a standard tax code then he will pay £6,620 tax in 2013/14, which is about £120 less tax then he will have paid in 2012/13. Higher rate tax kicks in at £41,450 in 2013/14.
YABU, SAHPs do not need childcare in the same way as 2 WOHMs do. It's that simple.
Actually some subsidised or free childcare for SAHMs would be an incredibly helpful boon in a progressive society, especially for single mums. Not everyone has support from friends or family who can give them a break from childcare 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Improved mental health in mums means improved cognitive development in children means fewer mental health difficulties when they're adults.
You want to improve society, support parents and parenting.
You to need to get a job or get a grip- sorry op. but most of us have to work so need all the help we can get with childcare- if I could sah I would- going to the gym is a luxury!
I don't expect to get preferential treatment as a SAHM, I just want these twats to think a little harder when making their policies. All I want to see is fairness and consistency. It is not equitable to remove something from a family on half the income of another family. Nor is it equitable to give tax relief to families on joint incomes of up to 300k while giving none to single income families, where one parent may be studying or volunteering for a few days a week to try and gain valuable experience for re-entering the workforce. All I ask for is for the government to implement equitable policies. This lot have shown over and over that they are not capable of this, therefore, I can only assume that it must be deliberate on their part. There is no other explanation.
You don't pay higher rate tax at £32K
I think higher rate tax does start at around 32k. From HMRC:
Sorry, link didn't work:
Im confused! why does a SAHM need childcare? and how are a working couple earning £48.000 between them better off than a couple with only one wage of £50,000? Surely the income would be around the same but the family with only one high earner has the luxury of a parent at home . I would love it if my dh could earn enough to cover both of our wages and would gladly forfeit our child benefit.
But if you earn £42k the first £9440 is tax free (personal allowance) so only the excess over this is taxable. So higher rate starts at £9440 + £32010
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.