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.
Tbh these days it's fairly straightforward to do a lot of the research, and application for work on the Internet, so anyone posting on here has access to that, and a lot of it can be done from home, in the evening if necessary while the children are in bed. Yes, going along for an actual interview will require childcare- and yes, it's not easy when it's a one off situation and you have no family nearby. Been there, done that, many of us have. But honestly, it never occurred to me to expect the govt to provide on tap childcare for the occasions I might have an I interview. And you know what?- if the govt did provide a network of childminders prepared to do this on a flexible basis, we'd see loads of mums suddenly complain that they couldn't possibly leave little johnny when he's not used to it. I expect 'dumping them with strangers' might feature too...
Really, if people could look at the bigger picture they'd see how far childcare has come... It's not that long since there were
NO tax credits, NO free hours for 3 yr olds and 3 months maternity leave - parents would pay the full rate for childcare from
The moment their baby was 12 weeks old until they started school.
It just beggars belief to some of us that people are seriously suggesting SAHP should have free childcare .....
I've had an email through from my voucher providers with a bit more information:
The voucher scheme will continue to be open to new applicants till 2015 and will then continue to run for existing users.
Existing voucher scheme users will then be able to choose either the vouchers or the new scheme - not both.
The £1,200 is per child, topping out at £2,400.
It will also be offered to single working parents.
Eligibility is based on having both parents working at least 16 hours per week.
You won't get it if you already receive tax credits or what will be universal credit.
I think a lot of people are seeing this whole thing as a massive attack on their choices, when it's actually just a change to support being offered for a specific purpose.
The default position is that we all pay our own way. State benefits and subsidies are there to create a safety net when things go badly wrong, and to make sure that those doing low-paid work - and the country needs people to be able to do all types of work at all levels of pay - aren't worse off working than not working, and can meet their basic needs.
Not getting a subsidy isn't being discriminated against - it's not getting something because it isn't needed.
People get housing benefit because there is a shortfall between their earnings and their housing costs. People get JSA because they need to be able to live while looking for work.
Where this scheme seems a bit odd is that it has such a high cap on earnings - it's difficult to see how £150,000 earners need assistance. But there's nothing wrong with having a childcare subsidy based on those who actually need childcare, and not extending it to those who don't need childcare. Families with a SAHP don't generally need childcare and families with no children don't need childcare. The people who do need childcare are those with two working parents.
It's also worth bearing in mind that we're in a right economic mess and the government aren't going to be thinking about nice, fluffy ways to make us all happy. Governments of booming economies can afford to think about subsidised childcare for all - governments like ours will be basing every single decision they make on whether it has the potential to help the economy.
I would imagine that someone has done the maths in relation to the economic benefits of getting a whole load of people back into work, who would otherwise be right on that borderline of it not being worth going back to work because they'll only just break even. I'm not the biggest fan of this government - particularly since they've just gone back on a promise they made pre-election in relation to cuts in my profession - but I honesty don't think they are sitting around thinking "Let's show those bloody lazy SAHMs. Tax-breaks for all our high-earning buddies - huzzah!"
I don't think the scheme's been well thought out, but I certainly don't think it discriminates against SAHMs.
And housewives to school age children have most of day to study,go interview,library
I work ft and studied for post grads in own time
One thing housewives ain't short of is time....bet I get a list of tasks now as ta-dah proof of how ard it is
To all the SAHP's who say the gov should help them with childcare. Do what the rest of us do and pay for it! The internet is a great place and you arent 'pounding the streets'. At 3 the 15 hours will kick in. Maybe you want to have assistance in finding a role and being given priority at interviews perhaps...
The reason I didnt take a career break is that I would have found it diffciult to get back to work with a 3-4 year gap in my CV. A choice of course and I have paid shedloads to childminders etc.
When the kids start school that could be the time to start searching. Oh no -sorry I forgot. You only want to work part time and have all school hols off with immediate cover should a child be sick!
Just to be clear-I don't expect to be paid as a sahm-that would be ridiculous. But just as my family's lifestyle choice is not subsidised by tax breaks, I don't expect anyone who has also made a choice to work to be subsidised either. It used to cost me fuel, work clothes, and towards the end of my time, childcare costs. I was in credit financially after all this and contributing to a pension and gaining status and career and so I, and more inportantly, our household overall, was gaining plenty. Why would I need my costs subsidising? Similarly, if your family is deriving overall benefit from your working, why do you need to be subsidised? I really get it in situations where it is not financially worthwhile working that there should be government assistance. But otherwise, why?
And not just my salary going into a scheme- but my employer contributing.
For the love of God.
Are people actually saying with a striaght face that working is a life style choice? Are they so removed form real life?
And are people actually saying that the state shouldn't help and encourage women to work after having DC? That despite childcare costs being the single biggest factor cvited as a reason why women fall from the work place, or take lower trajectories, we shouldn't help? That despite the fact that feminists have been campaigning for years and years for help with child care, that we shouldn't give it because it's, like, you know, just unfair on SAHMs?
Has it really come to this?
Well said Molehillmountain. Higher earners who will be eligible for this subsidy will have definitely made a life style choice to buy a nice big house with all mod cons, in a nice area, with good schools. They may run two cars and have two nice holidays. Good for them. They work hard. They deserve to spend their money on what they like. However, in many cases it is a life style choice to have two earners. In the same way that many single earners make the decision to live in a small house, in a not so great area, and run one car. It's all a choice we make. In many ways, two earning families have been one of the reasons house prices rose too much. The problem is that, house prices are so high, that in many cases, if people want their dream home, they both have to work. We live in a small house and we are not materialistic. We are happy for me to work when the children are a little older. I do not expect a subsidy from the tax payer. Neither should anyone else, working or not, except for the low paid.
Word - I agree. My parents generation was one where the mother didnt work. It was the done thing. My mother did work only because she was a teacher and clearly childcare during the school holidays was covered. It was the time where husbands filled in their tax returns on behalf of their wives! And thank god she did work because they divorced she was able to still contribute. We didnt have a great lifestyle tbh but she was able to make her own decisions as opposed to relying on my father who was very careful about revealing anything about his income!
Childcare costs are shocking. They do keep nurserys and childminders in employment though and its about time a spotlight was put on these costs but it really annoys me that some see a sense of entitlement to money when they choose not to work. Some are citing their DH's paying lots of tax. What next, my father contributing or worse my best friend working. I am only using what they put in.....
Seems so wordfactory, yes. People are finally nailing their colours to the mast, with the help of a budget measure that will set the tone now but not actually come into force for three years. It's not enough that our family contributes to the tax system. We have no financial support, need none and ask for none. But actually, families with two wohp are now being fiscally advantaged. I don't know why I'm so het up about it really. My youngest is nearly two, I'll be returning to work soon anyway. But I'd rather that decision and the one we've made to have me at home up til now was seen as a personal one for our family, just as I view anyone else's who can actually be fortunate enough to choose and decides the other way. And then I actually believe in helping people who are struggling despite two incomes. I just don't think this government supports choice. It clearly sees the choice to have two working parents as morally superior.
How about a tax subsidy for travel costs to work? That must take about a fifth of dh's income. He has to do it though. Where do these subsidies stop? I actually think tax relief on travel to work is a bloody good idea. This would not penalise couples without children. Everyone would benefit.
Sorry-two separate points there confused by me I think, but yes, word, I am saying that work is a lifestyle choice for many high earning families. And that it is being seen as a morally superior one. Fair enough. I like to know where I stand.
Completely agree with you again Molehillmountain
Yes they are mole.
They are saying, if i can't have it then I don't want anyone to have it!
They are saying that despite repeated calls from women to subsidise good quality childcare (as is done in many countries), that we shouldn't do it because it is unfair on those who don't use it...
Seriously, this argument sucks. We have such low levels of women in senior positions in the UK, which in turn feeds the lack of family friendly work culture and lack of family friendly culture in policy decisions. And we have such high levels of single women dependent on benefits after marital break ups, and female pensioners living in poverty...
Thing is, isn't Scandinavian childcare state run? So more of a parallel with state education here, or healthcare? A service that you opt into or not. Whereas what's proposed here will be a tax break, whichever way you look at it. I will get my head round why that seems different but it does. I will get over this and stop feeling cross soon, but I just can't get my head round why this government's proposal is going to help women to maintain careers. It's too little for that, or not needed if the woman's salary is sufficiently high anyway. It is enough of a token to make a statement about what the government favours. Perhaps they have moved from championing marriage in their last term to being more realistic and I just haven't shifted and remain naive. Going away to think more about it. Just please don't suggest that it's all about financial need.
Well mole all the evidence suggests that most women opt out of the workplace, not as an evangelical desire to be a SAHM, but as part of a pragmatic decision based on child care costs.
When they do return (if they do at all) it's usually on a lower status/pay level.
The net result of this is that we have a shockingly small number of women in senior roles. This simply cannot be good for a civilised society. And it compounds a lack of change. Without women there to force change, who will do it?
Now it may be that many women still decide to drop out of the work force, but at least they will have had a choice to stay. Or a bit more choice than they did at the start of the week.
Can we get shot of this ridiculous idea that there is a moral aspect to this? No one has said being a WOHM is 'morally superior'. What rubbish. There is no moral aspect to either SAHM or WOHM. This is simple economics. If you work, you are contributing to the economy in a way which you can't be if youre not working. That's a fact, not a moral judgement.
Surely an easier, less cumbersome way of doing this though would be to raise the personal allowance sufficiently so that everyone pays less tax. That way people would be free to make their own choices, either to have two parents working or one to stay at home with the children.
I am not happy with the NHS or the state education system (please dont lets get into a debate about state v private), therefore I have chosen to do the right thing for my family. Just like the SAHM's who say they are doing it for theirs...
And no one has really answered this quetion. Why do SAHP's need childcare costs paid....
maisiejoe, they don't. Well I don't any way. I just feel that as a SAHP myself, my husband pays more in tax than if we were both working and earning the same income. We also lose child benefit, which the two parents working don't. Now they get this child care subsidy as well. It just feels as if the government is sticking two fingers up at the SAHP family.
If Sahms don't need child are then presumably working parents don't need subsidised child are? You go to work for money, which is the same whether you have zero children or twelve.
Ihategeorgeosborne- if you and your husband were both working and jointly earning the same as he does as sole earner, then frankly, you would have a hell of a lot more on your plate than you do now. Childcare costs. Commute for two of you. That could well mean running a second car: buying it, insuring it, taxing it. Plus all the peripheral costs- work clothes for two of you, perhaps a cleaner ...
You just aren't comparing like with like. Two people working is twice the man hours of one person working. If you want more money, you could work. A family where both parents are working don't have that spare earning capacity
I'm not making a value judgement on SAHP btw. Each to their own. But it's just baffling as to why anyone thinks they should have access to exactly the same as a family with 2 working parents.
Also, where are all these SAHP's going to get jobs. I will go back to work when my youngest is old enough and we will become a dual income family again. However, I was under the impression that there are many families where no parent works and one of those parents would be desperate for a job. This means that the higher rate tax paying family with a single income will then become an even higher earning double income family, to the detriment of the family where no one works. Obviously everyone doesn't go for the same types of jobs, but surely this will put more pressure on families where neither parent works and where one would love a job. Certainly where I live, the women who work who are married to high earning husbands, do all the teaching assistant, dinner ladies, school hours jobs. They say themselves that it is just pin money for their clothes and socialising. Many families might be grateful for those jobs for food on the table, particularly where no one works, or who are already very low income.
What wordfactory said...
Janey68 and so many others spouting prejudice ad nauseum - for the love of god who has said SAHPs should have free childcare? As a working parent and a taxpayer I am entitled to tax deductable childcare vouchers which we choose to use to help my ill DH get a break and others may choose to use for training. I take it you don't really and truly think that is free childcare?
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.