AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?(732 Posts)
So I know it's fairly old news, but the new government proposals to help working parents with childcare costs have been popping up on my BBC newsfeed this week.
Now there are plenty of things wrong with these new proposals, such as the "help" only being available for parents with under-5s to start with, and that students don't count as "employed" so if you're both/one of you are students and need childcare while you're at college you get no help at all. At least they're apparently going to count being a carer as "employed" so families where one parent stays home to care, they will get help with childcare.
However, what I don't understand is why these aren't the issues being highlighted, but instead, just people whining that SAHPs will lose out. Erm, please correct me if I'm missing some fundamental point here, but isn't that because SAHPs, by their very nature, don't need childcare!! That's why they stay at home - to look after their own children.
I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?
So to my mind, it's like complaining that you aren't entitled to JSA because you have a job, and saying that having JSA for those who need it is "dangling a carrot in front of people with jobs to tempt them into unemployment".
I think they would be better off putting the money into state run subsidised childcare. (Maybe look to Denmark) oh and insisting of flexibility
There is one childminder here who is full with a waiting list. There are two heaving playgroups that only do mornings. I know this is quite common place.
Sorry I meant if 1 of you is working such as areujoyful as you would have no childcare.
Yes you can petey! Eapecially London a and south east. Our total bill for childcare, rent and council tax is £2200 per month, and we've got cheap rent for this area!
I personally think if you arent entitled to tax credits then you cant be struggling for money that much as the thresholds are high for that.
Flatmum- I would just like to point out that staying at home DOES cost you £1000's each year because YOU are the childcare worker and by staying at home YOU are losing an entire annual income as you don't get paid to look after your own kids. Not all SAHP are yummy-mummy's whose other half has a highly paid job and spend all day shopping. We struggle financially for this decision.
I'm a SAHP (definitely not a rich one) but would imagine that there would have to be some money leftover after the nursery/nanny has been paid to make the going out to work worthwhile, even if it isn't as much as they'd like. SAHP are frustrated because it's not the easy option, can be bloomin' hard work at times (though great fun at others) but you're left feeling like you don't contribute to society because you don't work outside the home, and isn't recognized by the government as a valid role and you are even penalised for making this particular choice.
Whether you go to work or stay at home, either way kids are going to cost you A LOT of money!!! ��
<blinks at motown and tries very hard to understand what her point is except that that there's a lot wrong with this policy. Which we all agree on anyway>
Okay, another angle. Say everyone who uses childcare can claim back £100 a month no matter what (unless they earn over £60k because the consensus seems to be they shouldn't get any help). Let's assume a monthly full-time childcare bill of £800, a generous estimate if you consider costs in the South East.
A set of full-time working parents paying out £800 for the full-time place and claiming £100 back are getting 12.5% of their bill paid.
A SAHM may use two sessions per week for whatever reason - job seeking, hospital appointments, volunteering etc. I hesitate to think a SAHP would need more than 1 full day a week of childcare without not really being a SAHP. So with a monthly cost of £160, and being able to claim back £100, they are getting 62% of their bill paid.
But not all WOHPs, full time or otherwise, use full-time childcare, so they might get any random percentage of their bill paid.
Which isn't fair to the parents using full-time childcare.
Or we could just accept that very few tax breaks or benefits are fair on 100% of the people 100% of the time and look at the people really suffering under this new proposal. I'll give you a clue - it's not SAHMs . It's students, it's carers, it's low-income families and it's job-seekers.
This thread really has highlighted, however, why the government should just do what most normal countries do and directly subsidise childcare providers or offer state-run childcare at prices which are affordable in the first place. For some reason though, there are horrified gasps and protests that childcare standards would drop to Victorian sweatshop levels if that were to happen. It baffles me, it really does.
Surely the new scheme will be for any registered childcare setting as well? Why wouldn't it be?
oh and Shitsinger - you probably already know this but you could use CCV for a range of child activities as long as it was undertaken by a registered childminder.
This will mean a lot of small business people are impacted - music teachers, sports, other educational activities.
Oh and don't forget no one will know what to do when they have a 6 year old as no doubt they'll try screw people further.
You will be worse off if 2 SAHM work flexibly.
If you work less that 15 hours a week or earn less than 350 a week you won't get this.
The new scheme will disadvantage a lot of people especially those who critically depend on CCV to get in and stay in work.
Once again this govt will hit those who are too busy working or raising children or both to lobby them effectively.
Outrageous top income earners don't need the help single families and families where both parents work or one parent works and one stays at home need better help that this bs proposal.
How would that pan out for those of us who do both roles ?
I WOH fulltime but don't use childcare as we both work flexibly- am confused as to how it would work.
Good that you don't begrudge WOHP but they will get LESS help.
And when I give you some examples about where WOHP were outraged by SAHP receiving CCVs I'm suddenly overacting.
Anyway back to the OP yes SAHM are disadvantaged by this change - how could anyone possibly think they are not?????
Soverylucky... I would say, the proposed tax breaks make it clear that a similar, but ot identical, system is needed to support SAHPs. Paid for childcare is mainly relevant to WOHPs. Transferable personal allowances OTOH would be mainly relevant to SAHPs.
Rather than bite one another in the ankles, it would be intesting to discuss how MN might campaign for this.
Why are you are over reacting to some silly comments?
The thread had moved on - its a good idea to stop being reactive and make valid intelligent points rather than silly tit for tat point scoring.
Im both SAHP/WOHP - the new system wont benefit me at all but I really don't begrudge WOHP a tiny bit of help at all.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Upthread there were some comments like -
"You (SAHM's) are always saying they're happy to make sacrifices to raise their children so they'll be happy with their choice... and saying if they are so envious of others they could always get a job so they are not missing out"
There were lots of snide comments actually.
And begrudging of women who had the free childcare hours .. saying it was gym time.
Whether you SAH or WOH most people take holidays with their DC - why is that funny
Who is saying WOHP are hard done by ?- if you want a break then pay for it - WOHP or SAHM .
Oh and don't forget you could claim the whole lot of CCV at once in one point in the tax year - very handy for women who might be at risk of redundancy and needed to pay for childcare while looking for a new role?
So if you claim £2,916 you can save £886.
So two WOHP's will be worse off.
Oh and by excluding children over 5 it will remove people from accessing help.
I do understand that. The amount I quoted is what can be claimed in CCV.
What you do not pay tax on.
Motown you don't get £243 per month, this is the amount of your income you don't pay tax on.
And I'm sure lots of people holiday with their children - funny that?
I don't buy the I'm so hard done by as a WOHP, I never get a break and why should someone else get a break.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Im sure lots of people are sunning themselves overseas -lucky them
What on earth are you on about motown??
And what I don't get is just how unfair this is for part time workers and WOHPs and SAHPs and women on mat leave. Currently women on mat leave can claim ccvouchers while on mat leave.
If 2 of you worked you could both claim 243 a month so cumulative total of 5,813.
No but now it is going to be 1,200?
And if you are a student or work say under 16 hours you won't qualify?
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.