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.
Well you don't actually need childcare do you? And yes preschool is important, hence the 15 hours entitlement. Until then, what's wrong with children's centres and toddler groups?
I am a working mum and I feel that we will be worse off under the new scheme too. The vouchers actually make childcare affordable. I am the primary earner so no chance of me being a SAHM as we couldn't afford to live on hubby's salary alone. We have already worked out that we need to wait until DD is at school before we have another DC as we can not afford to have two children at nursery at the same time. Gutted that these changes might make nursery even more expensive.
Thanks mama bear.
I done both.
was hoping to go down self employed route this year that wasent covered by vouchers but hubby taking them out as he was unemployed would have helped me get business off the ground.
We have no family nearby to help so no free childcare.
Another huge concern for me if I was working parent.
is holiday clubs and after clubs anywhere ofsted registered could take childcare vouchers not sure if thats not the case the no tax relief on kids age 5+ so if you had one in nursery, 1 in school and no magic term time job.
Husband works 50+hours as retail manager so so works weekends, bank holidays and shifts vary if he has to go away, last min meeting so harder to find job that fits in around that and ensure 3kids are well looked after.
I also do voluntary work in community im on preschool committee, Pta and a breastfeeding peer supporter at local clinic -ie the who big soceity yet feel undervalued they keep saying ake work pay we recieve no state benefits other than child benefit and childcare vouhchers which may I ad have already been devalued for high rate tax payers couple years ago and reduced.
They brought in grants for deprived 2year olds and say preschool education is important.
I chose to start my 3year old in september hen she was 3 and paid nearly £500 fees for term 1 and 2 and she got funding finally in jan 15hours which funds 3sessions at preschool and 2sessions at day nursery which she adores as been there since 18months,
She cant start school until september next year when she be 5 her older sister started at 4.5 and her younger brother bit younger when he starts.
Hes april so wont get funding until september 2014 he starts school september 2015.
If I use a nursery which is near me and better suited to him theres a shortfall as grant funding is 38weeks a year and nursery contracts are 51weeks a year so anyone who uses nursery has shortfall anyway.
seems weird someone on 50k 1parent working loses child benefit
2parents on 48k get to keep and now get this new £6000 to help with their childcare costs so urge 2parents to get jobs at 49k each then they be fine!
Errrr... But the 2 parents working NEED childcare but you don't?
Tbh if one parent stays at home, why should the taxpayer fund childcare? It's a bit of a luxury paying for nursery when you don't work, so not something that that taxpayer should find IMO. The vouchers didn't really save you that much in the scheme of things really, and if you can't afford it without tax beaks then just cut down on the hours or something.
Find = fund, and beaks = breaks
If you're not working, why do you need childcare?
but why does a sahm require childcare?
also - surely this is better for you being self employed as you couldn't get childcare vouchers - with this change you both need to be working to claim back up to 20% of £6000 - so up to £1200 so doesn't that make you eligible whilst going down the self employed route?
as for threshholds - there will always be someone losing out comparatively wherever you set them I guess.
but why does a sahm require childcare?
also - surely this is better for you being self employed as you couldn't get childcare vouchers - with this change you both need to be working to claim back up to 20% of £6000 - so up to £1200 so doesn't that make you eligible whilst going down the self employed route?
as for threshholds - there will always be someone losing out comparatively wherever you set them I guess.
How is it an attack on SAHMs?
SAHMs don't need childcare.
The voucher scheme was only open to those whose employers signed up to the scheme, if your employer doesn't join or your self-employed you get no help at all. DH and I both work out of the home but neither of us can get vouchers, but because the new scheme is more inclusive we'll actually get some help with our necessary childcare. Forgive me for not feeling a great deal of sympathy for you.
Why should you get them if you can afford not to work? Surely you are the childcare?
Isn't the whole point of being a SAHM that you don't need childcare?
I also don't understand why a SAHM would need childcare, and would much rather the money was spent on two-parent working families, especially those on low incomes.
I just get pissed off I never had any vouchers, tax relief, baby bonds, or any of that shit - I paid for my own children, thank you
Does this mean a family where one parent earns over £50K will no longer get a funded 15 hours at pre-school for their three year old? I'm presuming not.
SAHM don't need childcare so it's not an attack on them.
If you're a SAHM and want your child to socialize, do what other SAHMs do and go to coffee mornings and play groups. Then from 3, use the 15 free hours of nursery! Simple!
The vouchers are there to support working parents. Changing the system yo further benefit this group makes sense- it's not an attack on SAHM. IMO you have been very lucky to have the benefit of these vouchers for so long, your voluntary work is laudable but you really shouldn't expect a tax break because of it, that isn't how the system works!
Mam29 says she wants to start own business, so she needs childcare to get that off the ground. But then she wouldn't exactly be a SAHM any more, I know, I know.
We have never had an employer who offered vouchers, so was always a minority thing, anyway.
No system would ever be completely fair.
As mama bears said they have been useful and looking at figures seems like cut on what they getting now.
as currently £55 a week.
says savings under new scheme £1200 a year.
I need to read more into detail.
I used them when i worked through 2 separate employers.
husbands also used them for 2separate employers.
so lots of people do use them
There was big petition and anger when gordon brown talked about scrapping them.
Its good the self employed now included.
150k seems huge liit when you consider the cliff for child benefit is 50k.
Theres more in the detail and from what I see those at the bottom already supported by tax credits , housing benefit and other stuff low earners can get.
If I take me out equation can the new scheme be used for holiday clubs for working parents?
I can get by and afford it as value preschool education and can see benefits its has its not about me having a break, palming them off its about their development and socialising.
We can afford to support own kids and do thanks benefits never really entered our head when planning our family but with everything going up and never for saw back in 2006 the end to universil benefits.
I don't think you are going to get a lot of sympathy.
Lynette scarvo- no preschool grant still 15hours term after 3rd birthday,
some low incomes can get term after 2nd birthday not sure what criteria it is on 2s grant.
I appreciate im lucky my husband works hard long hours some days he dont see the kids.
We chose to use nursery as saw benefits it had with eldest when I did work fulltime for practically nothing.
Now we have 3 with 2 under school age its just too pricey for me to work fulltime so made decision being lower earner to sahm and also make myself slightly useful in the community.
Where is your current figure of £55 per week coming from? You only save tax and NI on £243 per month so even if higher rate that's about £28 per week not £55 per week
Im not after sympathy we all in this together.
The pensioners not getting any cuts.
just seems lot of child related cuts.
im unsure how many people use this scheme 1parent
and from 1st sight cant see whole detail looks like working parents be worse off if saves less and more restrictive on where can be used.
Maybe should have titled post differently.
lots of other news today probably thinking people wont notice.
Think will be on news night tonight so will watch with interest.
I'm a higher tax payer working ft and having just lost cb now loose relief on vouchers
The gov make it really hard to keep working
Whilst I earn well job is v full on and stressfull, the more the child care costs the less I bring home and the less I can justify working
If I pack it in ironically we'd be entities to tax credits towards child care and cb again.... Gov would lose my tax contribution and have to pay more
I know we're still in better position than many but we're not rich and I'm fed up of being the go to middle option for funding the governments next woo idea
As a side note the fuel costs which are obscene and rising again makes work less attractive
As someone with a sound work ethic and over a decade in my career at a level I'm disappointed and disillusioned at how I'm being treated
Tax me yes absolutely but please stop messing with the rest it makes planning a life
the bbc link says upto £55 a week im not saying i save £55 a week.
we get £160 month vouchers the max is £243 per person can claim each month which we did when worked fulltime.
I have no idea how they came to this figure.
Ah well £55 per week is for two higher rate taxpayers. Ie not a family with a SAHM or SAHD
At a quick glance, I don't see a massive problem with this.
If both parents work, childcare is required. If only one parent works, childcare is generally not required.
With one parent at home, childcare is a nice extra. Personally, I found that DS1 got a lot out of being at nursery, so when I was on SMP, we still stretched ourselves a bit to keep him in nursery for 2 days a week as he enjoyed it and it gave me some time with ust DS2. But we didn't need that childcare.
Unfortunately, there have to be cuts somewhere - I don't think this a terrible place to make a cut.
Sleep dodger will you lose out on this or is there 2working parents.
have you lost child benefit?
This will hit single/widowed parents on decent wage too I imaginbe unless they excempt group?
I never said £55 was for one parent.
i just quoted what article said,
I need to see more detail but right now not sure im impressed.
not enough detail.
combined with new childcare farming ie changing rations mean not only will childcare cost more but it be worse quality.
Free pre school for 2 year olds was intended to give those children the education they need, as it was shown that children from deprived background have worse outcomes. It's not there to give the parents a break, it's for the sake of the children who are already disadvantaged.
Clouds, yes, spot on. Drives me round the bend when people keep talking about 15 hours of 'free childcare.' It's a pre-school learning through play programme. And it can be hugely positive as an early influence for children from v low income families.
I too don't understand why sahp's need professional childcare, although I do see that some might provide a nice break. I don't see why they govt should subsidise that though. Not remotely bashing sahms, but paid childcare is linked to working parents, surely.
(as we are both self employed, me and dp haven't had anything so far in terms of subsidised childcare, but even among my paye friends, I genuinely don't know anyone who uses a voucher scheme. Maybe they are more common in some sectors than others, I dunno....)
Why would a SAHM want to get childcare paid? Surely the whole point is that you have made a decision not to work, you cannot then get 'childcare' paid for as well.
Its funny, a lot of people believe in the cuts - as long as it doesnt effect them!!
You are a SAHM - you have chosen not to work and to look after your children yourself. You do not need paid childcare. I am not even sure why you think you should be entitled to it FGS.
Actually I think I do see your point mam29. The current vouchers can be used to pay for a range of childcare - whether that's nursery before 3YO, after school club, holiday playscheme etc. They are a recognition that people with families have extra costs, with no judgement on domestic arrangements, and no direct govt funding, just a saving on tax & NI like with pension contributions. But, the takeup has (apparently, if the figures in the press this week are to be believed) been very low - only 5% of employers offer them.
The new scheme is very different - it's government help for childcare in families with under 5s, where both parents work - i.e. those with the highest childcare bills. I don't see why that has to replace the current system, which works well for those who use it (we do), but if the takeup has really been as low as they're saying, I can see that it may not be working that well for all.
I have read the articles and i cant see how these are an attack on stay at home parents as otheres have said you arnt working why would you need the childcare and 1200 /pa is not really going to go far towards providing childcare. I work for the NHS so they do provide chilcare vouchers but they arent huge saving tbh the only saving is that you dont pay tax on that part of your salary. I personally have never used childcare as i have never found it to be flexible enough as a nurse i work lots of unsocial hours but we get by as my husband works shifts in a warehouse so we work opposite shifts not great for a relatioship but there you go!
I think the loss of child benefit in the way it has been done is what's driving this. Families with a SAHM where the main earner gets more than £50-60k will lose the benefit and also not get any of the new help, whilst families with two earners both below the cut-off for CB will keep it and now get help with childcare. And yes, this is manifestly unfair - but the problem is in the government's insane refusal to cut CB based on household income and setting the threshold higher. If it had been done on household income and the limit set at, say, £70k, then this would not be so bitter.
I do feel very strongly that the limits for this new scheme are also insane - it should be tapered so that those who earn least get the most help with childcare. I no longer use childcare (and never got any help beyond the 12.5 hours at age 3) but it sticks in my craw that my taxes are going to go on funding childcare support for people who earn many, many times what DH and I do.
Okay, sahp don't need childcare. Neither do earners of £150k need tax relief on childcare. Some sahp need to use childcare more than high earners need the tax relief. Fairness and those who can pay paying, please.
Anyone on vouchers can carry on on vouchers, especially as this isn't coming until 2015 after the next election (and the chances of a Conservative victory?)
The reason it's going up to £150 per parent is to encourage those parents back to work - it is a small benefit to say it really is worth carrying on working and paying £70k in tax and ni per year each rather than giving up to be SAHP.
Whether it will work is another thing but I really don't think it is SAHM bashing.
Lol ok you want tax relief to buy childcare so you can do what? Eat cake?
Oh good, another thread on this.
I can't even understand most of this one
'Free pre school for 2 year olds was intended to give those children the education they need, as it was shown that children from deprived background have worse outcomes. It's not there to give the parents a break, it's for the sake of the children who are already disadvantaged.'
It does really piss me off that this isn't available to disabled children (at least in our area), ds needs to go to preschool, but won't receive funding until he turns 3. Dh earns just over the income threshold, so we don't qualify.
But wrt the op, agree with everyone else, if you are a sahm then you don't need the childcare until they start preschool at 3.
SAHPs don't need the childcare. I am a bit concerned that it doesn't appear to apply to families where one or both parents are students, though
I think if a person or their husband earn over 50+K then they don't actually HAVE a problem.....
How can a family NOT survive on 4k+ a month???? even with the cost of mortgage and childcare
Pointythings has hit the nail on the head. Why should SAHM and family (who has just lost Child Benefit) be subsidising dual income parents(who have kept their CB) and earn more than them? SAHMs or SAHDs are being discriminated against and the tax we pay as a family is going to financially help parents who both work and who earn up to £150K or more which is just not fair. Happy to help out lower earning couples but this is crazy.
I don't have an issue with SAHMs not being offered tax relief on child care. What I do have an issue with is being told I am wealthy enough to lose CB for 3 DC due to being married to someone earning just over 50k, then a few months later hearing that families earning up to 300k will be entitled to tax relief on child care for each child. 50k is either rich or it isn't. If it is then fine, remove child benefit for all families earning 50k, rather than continuing to pay it to families earning up to 100k. As far as I can see, this government hates families with a SAHP and wants to make life as difficult as possible for us. As mam29 says, the moral of the story is make sure that two of you work and neither of you ever dare to become higher rate tax payers. You get to spend more time with your kids, pay less tax and are not constantly being shafted by the government.
I'd love to spend more time with my dds but I have to work.
We claim nothing for childcare as we share it due to our shift work.
Life can be manic and busy and we get very tired.
We never get a break.
Why should you get paid to have time to yourself if you don't work when working parents get no break at all.
If you want time off then pay for it.
So much moaning! Those who are talking about "subsidising" working parents - you do know that's not how taxation works, right? (And, even if you did, you'd have to get in line behind the childfree, who subsidise ALL of our children to an enormous extent).
I can't see the problem, really. The £150k limit is absurd but I guess it's linked to tax bands (which is a silly reason but there you go - can't expect Gideon to do anything 100% properly can we now?!)
I had to pay for the lot and got no tax credits, bonds or vouchers. Now I've just lost my child benefit as my husband is a higher rate tax payer.
Stop your moaning - you don't go to work so why should you be subsidised for your lifestyle?
new scheme subsides combined income of 300k
i doubt in south east 50k goes far,
new scheme initially just under 5s
2parents entering scheme with 1 child get less than old scheme £600 less.
students need childcare too.
i dont understand in tax system why some things are combined and others are individual.
Husbands higher rate tax payer but under 50 higher rate is is 40k now I think.so hes 41k gross.
I worked fulltime until i had 2nd child.
never had jsa
never had housing benefits
had 10quid a week tax credits lost last april.I accepted that as we all in this together.
I disagree with the madness of child benefit.
Then this. 2earning family has more coming in.
We are worse off me staying at home unless I can find 30k plus a year job its not worth my while paying childcare for 3 e have no family here to help and after school provision and holiday is patchy.
They have 14weeks holiday a year plus inset days, plays, sports day, church services, parents evenings.
I chose to start dd2 at nursery just 1 day a eek not because I wanted to get rid of her but developmet its really helped her socialise and speech develop plus was due baby no 3 and wanted her to start before he was born so she dident feel pushed out.
As shes sept birthday its been long wait fpor 3grant got in jan when she was 3years 4months old as it works term after 3rd birthday so if you lucky enought to have december birthday you get grant few weeks later,
As shes missed the school year by 16days have extra time paying for her nursery, preschools now free as runs term time only,
Would love to start her brother hes 2 in few weeks and very slow with speech, very clingy for me and has no little freinds his own age.
thinking starting him 3hours per week at preschool then maybe in september whole day same as his sister so maybe I could find part time work on that day.
But even if I did i have to earn min of 10k under new scheme so 29hours at min wage to get the 1200 per child so like most part tie mums lots work 16hours wont be enough to go onto scheme.
But because hubby earns too much we not eligible under childcare element of tax credits either we stuck in the middle so the very high duel income couple get help and the low incoe or unemployed couple get benefits, subsidised childcare and free 2year old places.
Worked out my old job 20k a year -childcare for 3 including wrap around care for eldest is 24,000 a year-2400 childcare they
offreing as under 5s only leaves me defecit of 1600quid.
I have never taken anything, I paid taxes.
we pay council tax, road tax, hubby oays tax,
get nothing back to show for it.
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.
I know so many who have hands on grandparents who take the for granted and gets loads of help I dont get that.
My mil likes to see them 1 at a time for 30mins.
Husbands long hours especially every bank holiday, weekends feels like being single um even worked mothers day.
I doing my best and fed up of sahm being vilified and non supported some recognition be nice and fairness for all.
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
Frazzled - OP is right that 2 parents earning combined £50k have a higher income than 1 earning £50k as each have a personal allowance. But then childcare has to be paid for so overall probably no better off, and if more than 1 DC probanly much worse off.
Yes, what Ceeveebee said. The table on the HMRC website shows earnings over and above the tax free limit.
according to this you do its inland revenue site and higher rate tax reduces each year so more and more people are dragged into paying higher rate tax.
32k from 2013.
I just disgree with changes in voucher syste.
currently the sytem means basic rate tax payers get more than higher rate.
the new system does not mean test and allows duell income couples to gain.
I also disgree with way child benefit changes been implemented.
why is childcare based on 2incomes
child benefit just 1?
its the unfairness of it.
Its not really about me its the injustice of the whole system.
people on 150k get 5%saving in april.
why shouldent if 1parent works get childcare vouchers they capped at 243 per person so at most worth £80 a month
for 1parent to study
get a break as not everyone has family.
based on childs needs.
oarent does voluntary work.
i volunteer as breasfeeding peer supporter at clinc 4hours a month this involves training to become one.
I was on pta that took few hours per month meetings, lot of work around events,
Im on preschool comittee as treasuer that takes a couple hours each week meeting events ect.
so much for big soceity eh not heard word about that recently.
are forgot to do link
Everyone who earns more than 10k gets to earn 10k free of tax. This is not just a perk of the higher rate tax payer. As a SAHM I don't need child care. Acouple earning 50k between them are better off than a single income income family earning 50k as they pay less tax. I can gladly forfeit our child benefit. It is £200 a month, i.e. a lot of money to lose. There is no consideration in this policy of the number of children in a family. If George Osborne announced tomorrow that he was going to remove CB from families with more than 2 children, there would be uproar on here. However, it seems to be OK to just take it away from a higher rate tax paying family, despite the fact that they might have 5 kids. I'm sorry, but no one will ever convince me that this policy is fair.
I agree with everything ihategeorgeosbourne has said (again)
I am a SAHM of 4 DC, my DP is a HRT, we have lost child benefit, this is £242 per month, £3000 a year or 5K a year before tax. It's a lot of money to lose in one hit so to speak.
As everyone else has said, my neighbours next door with one child can earn 100K and still receive CB and pay a lot less tax than my DP does. And that child can be a teenager so they probably don't even pay for formal childcare.
However, I agree that SAHMs do not need childcare, I chose to be at home I don't then expect the government to subsidise children for my under 3s. I do know a few SAHMs who pit their DC into nursery for a break though.
I want to return to work, I want to retrain as a teacher but at the moment I cannot see how this would work. No family support and a DP who works long hours. I would need childcare whilst at college for 9 months, I guess under theses new rules I wouldn't be entitled to any help. In Scotland you are guaranteed a FT post for one year so childcare for that then your on your own, no jobs really all supply work, sporadic and poorly paid. You can be phoned up that morning for work that day but how can you sort childcare for that?
With a job outside term time then you have holidays to worry about if you even got a job
Sorry meant to say, I cannot gladly forfeit our child benefit
Im sorry I find your posts quite hard to follow so you may have answered this or not - but why should a SAHM have paid childcare - you dont need it!
Yes, Mam29 - that's the site I looked at as well. But those amounts in that table are what you earn over and above the tax free allowance of 9440 (or whatever it is). So you don't pay 40% tax until your total earnings are around £42K.
Watch it ihategeorgeosbourne we will be told we chose to have loads of DC and we shouldn't have had them if we can't provide for them
If this CB cut had been softened with a transferable personal allowance from a non working parent to a working parent it might have been easier to take although that would not help single parents.
The sad thing is, that this government want to turn us all into a nation of debt slaves. They believe that bringing up children does not benefit the economy directly. However, having two people per family slaving their guts out to pay for an over-priced show box for 25 years seems to be their ultimate aim. After all, it pays their wages.
Sorry, should read shoe box, although I guess show box works too!
sorry yes i hadnt thought of the £10,00 each tax free so can see that the working couple will have more money in some borderline cases. We all look at things from our own perspective, mine being that ,dh and i both work full time to earn a combined 49,000, we can not increase our income , a family with one higher earner still has the option of the second parent going out to work to increase theirs. Dont get me wrong, i am not against SAHM at all,and i think its a shame that it is now a luxury and often not a viable choice for many familys.
Ihategeorgeosbourne - are you my twin ?
Next they'll be wanting children to leave school at 10 so they can work also, the skiving freeloaders, they aren't paying tax after all?
Quite possibly sweetkitty
I really don't trust them at all sweetkitty. I'm waiting for the announcement that any family with a higher rate tax payer will have to pay for their own children's education. After all, it's only fair!
You could be right you know.
You would think they would be nicer to HRTs a fair old whack off them in tax, oh thy do once your in their millionaire gang
Just wanted to point out to OP, although its quite late in the thread now, that the 2 year old funding is not for the low income or unemployed parents to get childcare but for the children of some of those low income or unemployed parents who aren't getting the interaction or socialisation that they need to get some sort of interaction. You don't automatically qualify for it if you are unemployed or low income either. There are guidelines to follow and someone (eg health visitor, social worker) would need to assess the situation and refer the family/child to see if they tick the boxes to get the hours. This could be children of parents with drug problems, mental health issues, single parents who have no family support. Some of these children might never see another child or have regular meals or have any toys or books. Some children in the city I lived in start school not knowing their own name. That's how little interaction they get. I am so sick of entitled people begrudging children who could be having a pretty shitty life from having their 15 hours a week just because their own children don't get the 15 hours so they don't get 15 hours of "free childcare".
Whoops massive block of text!
Sneezing waking jesus.
I support the 2year old funding
Im can see benefits.
I worked in some very deprived areas seen problems at 1st hand
I grew up in single parent family not much interaction.
I do think 2year old funding for all be faireras think kids benefit from early years education I dont exactly see preschool as childcare as cant work within 3hours unless self employed.
I know many mums all backgrounds who find some toddler groups hard to attend as cliquey. kids wrong ages ect.
I was mainly wanting to correct you based on:
But because hubby earns too much we not eligible under childcare element of tax credits either we stuck in the middle so the very high duel income couple get help and the low incoe or unemployed couple get benefits, subsidised childcare and free 2year old places.
The low income or unemployed couple doesn't necessarily get a free 2 year old place, only some children of said couples do if they fit any of the guidelines. Its not an automatic thing for being unemployed.
You are right when you say it would be more fair for everyone to have it because it does benefit children but as that would cost so much money, only the children who need it most can have it. They use income (low/unemployed) to narrow down the pool of people who can apply for it as statistically those children are the most deprived and in need of it.
Mums from other backgrounds may struggle with toddler groups and not attend them but its highly likely that their children will interact with other people in some way during the week. Like going to the shops, popping to the park, seeing family, going for a walk and passing people in the streets. Some young children won't leave the house so won't know other people exist. That's the children that need the funding.
The bottom line is that the country doesn't have enough money to pay for everything that we'd all like to see happen in an ideal world.
As far as I can see from that link, families with a SAHP will still get their 15 free hours at three, just as they do now. There's no point saying "oh well we should all get free hours at 2 because that would be better for everyone." There are lots of things that would be better for everyone, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for them.
Free childcare for 2 year-olds would be unworkable because it would cost way too much. 2 year-olds would be in nursery, not pre-school, with different childcare ratios and costs. There wouldn't be enough spaces at existing nurseries in some areas. It would be completely unmanageable.
Again, extra free childcare would be lovely. There are times when I would cut my right arm off for three hours to go round the supermarket without small children in tow, or have a GP appointment without having to take the kids. But it absolutely cannot be a priority for government spending.
You're housewife you don't work!you're not being attacked you do your own childcare since not doing owt else
You already are entitled to 15hr free childcare when eligible
Frankly You have no basis for complaint,you're not juggling work and childcare
mam29 - you are picking specific examples the argue an imaginary couple get treated better then you. do you think there are many couples earning 49k each? There are many households worse off than your so get it in perspective.
and i think you are overestimating the contribution to the common good of households like yours.
so lets look at 2 two income household, both on average incomes (many households like this) Family 1
Family 2 50k seems to be a fairly standard income for a one earner and SAHP on MN.
Family 3 the dual income 150k each.
Family 1 each pay 6kpa in tax so 12k total
Family 2 one person pays 14k in tax so 14k total
Family 3 each pay 59kpa in tax so 118k total
Family 1 only pay 2k pa less than family 2 but childcare will cost them far more than that.
Family 2 will get NI paid for the SAHP by Ms&Mr Taxpayer, so she can claim a pension later.
Family 3 will get a small amount back but they already contribute 9 times more than Family 1 or 2. they are also likely to employ a nanny who will also pay NI & tax.
so I dont think Family 2 have such as terrible deal as you make out.
I am so sick of entitled people begrudging children who could be having a pretty shitty life from having their 15 hours a week just because their own children don't get the 15 hours so they don't get 15 hours of "free childcare".
I just wanted to repeat this because it's how I feel too.
to be honest, anyone with a household income of £50,000 shouldn't have too much to moan about (myself included, and i know that some people have large mortgages/rents etc.) I have friends who struggle on minimum wage jobs, work really hard and even with top ups of tax credits , dont earn nearly that much.
fraz to be honest, anyone with a household income of £50,000 shouldn't have too much to moan
Yes. thats the deal of being a high earner in the UK: you pay more tax and don't get lots out...because someone needs to pay for govt services and it cannot be those on low incomes.
I'm a SAHM. I don't need childcare. However when I had breast cancer and had the op, followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy I could have blooming well done with it!!!
They should have built something in to say if a SAHM has certain medical conditions then the family can get help for as long as the family needs it. DH had to reduce his working day and took hours of unpaid leave just to keep us going.
Sorry, not much sympathy from here either. If you are a SAHM you don't actually need childcare. Then the 15 free hours kick in before school to give all kids experience of nursery and then free school place kicks in. Seems fair to me.
Isnt this a bit of a non issue. I am getting tired of SAMP's in the midst of a turblent ecomony putting their hands out for what they consider to be their share.
Most people believe in reducing our debt (as long as it doesnt affect them!).
Why on earth would a gov pay someone to be at home. And all this nonsense about going to the supermarket on your own etc etc. Supermarkets have never been open so long. Some are open 24 hours, of course someone will come on saying:
'yes, but I have no partner, I have no family, I have no friends that I can leave with kids with for a hour whilst I do my shopping and then I can do the same for them'. I never believe these people and what about online shopping if it is really that difficult.
On another post I got into a fairly heated discussion about a mother who insisted on taking her child to her sisters play at school and saying she wouldnt leave the hall when her baby started crying. She claimed she had NO ONE that she could have left the baby with so she was 'entitled' to stay.
SAHP's being paid is a load of twadle.....
Sunnymeg - in our nursery there is a toddler and baby room that is for HV/social work referrals. It's for children with mums with PND/deprived children/children with LDs and family situations like the one you've had. I was offered a place as I had severe SPD when pregnant. The number of people that have told me to put DS in early is amazing, I'm not pregnant now DS will start his funded place at age 3 in Aug, there's no reason for him to be in nursery just because I fancy a break and it could be taking a place away from a truly needy child.
SAHMs do not need free childcare or a nursery place before the age of 3 unless in the circumstances I've stated above. If you want your child in nursery before 3 pay for it yourself.
I do think SAHPs are aggrieved not just by this but by the changes in child benefit and the emphasis that this government had put on having two parents out working and paying tax. It's turning WOHMs and SAHMs against each other the same way as they are turning rich against poor.
As a SAHM I do not ask for anything from the state, having already lost CB but I would like to be treated fairly and with respect for the job I do.
And as an aside I would also like to see better pay for early years workers, some I know have degree equivalent qualifications and ongoing Professional development yet are on 20K with no prospects of earning more. If all these SAHPs go find the non existent jobs are there really going to be enough early years workers to look after their children? Or maybe the SAHMs could be the early years workers, so go out look after someone else's children for not enough to pay your own childcare and see your own children less but who cares because you'll be paying tax and won't be sitting about skiving watching Jeremy Kyle!
The thing is once your child turns 3 you have your free childcare. And once they start school you have almost the day to yourself.
Its lovely to think I would never be late for a school pick up because a meeting has over-run (my DS has extended days) or to always be there for every sports day, every chat with the teacher about next years subject's and the various coffee mornings. I have missed some of these events. For a school to put an invite for 11am to chat through with parents extra activities really does benefit a SAHM.
However I recognise its the price I pay to work full time so I am not complaining at all.
And I have had some experience of recruiting for a part time worker a few years ago answering the question someone posed about non -existent jobs.
Out of the applicants invited to interview (10), three didnt turn up, one called to say her child needed to go to the GP, and one stated she only wanted term time hours and could she do the role at home to save on childcare costs for her young baby!!
sweetkitty I would like to be treated fairly and with respect for the job I do.
what should the govt do to show you that?
For a start they Gould make the child benefit cuts fair, cap it at 60K household income if they have to.
Stop making us feel like scroungers as we don't pay tax, apparently you are only good to society if you pay tax.
Most of us have paid a lot of tax pre children and will do again, yes it's our choice to not pay it for a few years whilst our children are you g but stop berating us for it and when we complain we're told to shut up as we're all drinking coffee in our slippers whilst our children are in free childcare.
How on earth is it an attack?
You don't use child care so ...you don't need it.
There must be a million services/benfits out there that most of us don't access. I mean, my house has never been on fire, but I'm kinda glad the fire brigade are around to put out other peoples.
No one is really saying you are scroungers at all! I knew I would be a better Mum working than not. For some for all sorts of reasons they decide to become a SAHM. Their choice of call but not something you should be paid for.
I do think some would like the gov to pay them to get a 'break' from the children and allow them to run their errards!
I've heard it said that the state should recognise and compensate SAHPs for raising the next generation of good citizens!!!!
I mean, really!
That's our role as parents to do that. That's our responsibility. That's the morally right thing to do...we can't expect to get paid for it.
That's like saying we should all be paid not to engage in criminal behaviour. No, it's just what civilized people do.
I think the attack is coming from the fact that just now if you are a SAHM you can in effect buy childcare vouchers from your husbands employer and use them for nursery/afterschool or summer clubs. Once this new scheme comes in they won't be able to do this and to access any discounted childcare both parents have to be working.
There's great flaws in the scheme and yes there are SAHMs who use childcare to get their nails done but there's also student parents, some doing OU courses, one Mum I know puts her DS in nursery a half day a week to clean her fathers house and do his shopping, another volunteers and another has a disabled child so uses nursery as a place for her other child to go whilst she looks after the disabled child (hospital appts etc as she feels the other child needs a break from his sibling) if all these people are using childcare vouchers they will lose them under this new scheme.
I don't think SAHMs are up in arms saying "we demand free childcare" just that they want the same tax breaks as people in work if they chose childcare for whatever reason.
As I've said already ins SAHM I don't use childcare vouchers and have my DC in childcare as much as I would loves few hours to myself, I couldn't afford to.
Thing is, why does someone with a combined income of £300k need tax breaks either? It's a tax cut by the back door dressed up as an incentive to work. Absolutely support two income families who have no choice and yet are crippled by childcare costs. But I'd rather the government didn't find my wealthier friends with their lifestyle choices just the same as they don't fund ours. At the beginning I thought the child benefit thing was fair-the higher earners shouldn't get it. But neither this nor childcare tax breaks for the rich are fair and they're cynical vote winners. The lowest paid workers won't even benefit from this.
sweet they want the same tax breaks as people in work
SAHP get different tax breaks. A SAHP gets NI credits - everyone else pays their own NI contribution.
Someone earning 26k pays 2k in NI every year. if the same person gave up work to be a SAHP, they would get NI credits - previously costing them 2k.
NI credits if you SAH, childcare credits if you WOH. Whats not fair about that?
Sweetkitty as looking after your own children is NOT an actual job no one should get tax breaks for it, or paid child care either. It's the working parents and other workers funding all this and I really don't agree with the tax I earn paying toward breaks or child care for people who don't actually need childcare. Paying taxes for benefits for people who actual need them, sure that's fine.
I'm agreeing with you, I just trying to explain, rather clumsily, where I think the attack on SAHPs thing is coming from.
Personally I think the system is far too complicated, if two parents are working and you earn under X you should get a discount in childcare. Student parents and special circumstances like unpaid carers should also get done help.
I actually did not know that about SAHMs being paid NI credits up to their last salary, so I will have had NI credits for the past 9 years up to my last annual salary which was around 40K I think? I thought I had done protection that would give me a standard state pension, I was trying not to think if my pension shortfall and was thinking if just ramping it up when I returned to work.
I really hate the working parents attack on sahm and vice versa,
It doesnt acheive much.
some people have no choice but to go out to work I apperciate that.
There as some sahm who have no choice as even with help they either would not benefit as have to earn 10k+ if they have 1 child its less than current system and stops at 5.
I dont expect to be paid to be a sahm mum.
Im fortunate my husband has decent paid job and I can stay at home but with 3kids 2preschoolers cant afford to return to work right now hence why going down self employed route.
I paid my taxes prekids.
hubby pays a lot of tax.
I get to keep cb as hubby does not earn 50k.
its the inequality of the child benefit changes combined with inequality now of the new childcare changes.
Mums who already work few hours part time lose out
student mothers lose out.
sahm mums lose out.
I dont see anything wrong ith current system as long as one parent works pays tax then they should get the relief its really not a huge amount of money compared to the extra money a 150k earner will keep from april extra 5%of earnings on 150k 7.5k gift for them and providing they both high earners they get 1200 per child as well..
What im trying to say is look beyond me and consider people you know.
do they get free childcare and support from family.
Do they volunteer and do stuff in community.
do they not only care for for their kids but also elderly parents/inlaws?
Do they sadly have period of illness where the smums got cancer or the their husband has.
I missed 2family funurals this year as dident have childcare adn felt bad about it.
Well said mam29
I'm just not understanding this vitriol against SAHPs right now.
If I put my DC in childcare then went out and looked after other DC all day I would be a lot more valued probably because the person employed to look after my DC would be paying tax and I would also be paying tax, as I've said your value seems to be on whether you pay tax.
My DP and I are a partnership, he pays an awful or of tax, much more than if we were both out working and earning half each of his salary ( we often joke we should job share as it would save money, I wish), I know he is paying much more tax than the average person so as a household we are contributing, he works bloody hard for it though and can be called away at short notice so needs me at home to pick up the pieces. We don't grudge paying tax it's needed for the services we use. We just want it to be a fair system.
I actually want up work but its not feasible just now
When I was working I never remember thinking, my taxes are going on child benefit why should I have to pay for children I don't have? I never really have it a second thought, you paid tax that was it so I'm so shocked by all this that's going on just now.
Just thought if another thing.
Suppose I'm a SAHM and in using the tax break hubby's vouchers for some "me time" by using childcare, could I in theory then get a job at an hour a week thereby be in employment and take the full allowance?
Does that make sense? You presumably don't need two FT working parents so you could claim the full allowance but font actually need the childcare to work, a few working parents I know have DC in nursery on their days off?
So you could work one or a few hours a week and still claim it?
Or you could have DC in nursery a few hours and then have GPs doing most of the childcare and still claim it.
Or "work" for your husband as quite a few SAHM mums claim to do. I think there's done tax benefits or something of having your wife on the books and paying her salary. So if you "worked" for your husbands company you could still claim the childcare?
But how can a SAHM get a tax break when they dont earn anything....
Tax doesnt work like some are saying, just because you paid some tax previously doesnt give you the option to claim some of it back when you decide to stay at home.
If it worked like that please can I have my money back for not using the state education system and having private medical insurance.
I didnt know that SAHP's got NI credits when they werent earning How does that work? Surely if you arent earning you are not paying into the NI pot? How can you get the same out as someone who has paid - or have I got that all wrong.....
In my distant mind though, didnt something come in about this or am I dreaming....
I don't see this as an attack on SAHP.
A crucial point (which was made earlier too) is that families with both parents working are already maxed to the limit in terms of earning power, ie 2 x people working. When one is a SAHP there is still more earning capacity. Even if the SAHP can't earn enough to cover childcare, there is the option to work in evenings/ weekends to fit round the other parent. And yes I appreciate that it's not always easy to do that, but neither is being a 2 working parent family easy for anyone .
Being a SAHP is a valid choice if it's what you want to do, but I don't see why anyone is looking to the state to provide that validation. It should be something you do because you want to and feel is right for you. It's absolutely not comparable with a job where you are being remunerated. Of course, raising a generation of well balanced young people is vital- but thats parenting and we all do it whether we work or not
I agree Janey. When SAHP's list out what their role is - well I have to do that too or pay someone to do it. Washing, ironing, driving the kids around, cleaning etc.
It does make the family's life easier when one doesnt work. I have to sit down with my DH every weekend and run through what pick up's, and tasks I can do and what he can do. If we have a clash we probably have to pay someone to do it for us.
Im not sure I get you swwet kitty.
do you mean the tax free allowance of 10k from next year?
if you a part time person under 10k fromapril next year then you paying no income tax anyway.
if you earn £100 a month say.
you cant then transfer the other 9900 to husband no.
If you mean the new childcare vouchers.
the rules stipulate both parents have to be earning a income ok 10k or more as guess the new childcare help is taxable allowance.
At moment the oldstyle childcare vouchers are pre tax relief benefit of his earnings.
The other thing you mention setting self up as company yes that happends but could only do that if self employed and at momeny self employed not entitled to new vouchers.
I guess theres a loop
if married couple set up business and paid his wife extornionate 10k for being his pa maybe running the house,
Then both would be working and get new help I guess.
a;so both be suing full tax allowances so have tax allowance of 20k.
Mps frequently employed their wives, relatives dident they at tax payers expense.
I have seen some high earning mummies on twitter discussing if loophole of nannies being london expense but dont know anyone in real life her who has a nanny.
My voluntry work as preschool commitee takes up hours of my time and we decide on hiring and firing its like being a employer.
same goes for school governers much respect to them as its lot of work, time and responsability for no pay.
Apart from 15hours my 3.5year old gets I pay the remaining gap to nursery so funding someones job.
Pay for breckfast club and one after school club.=paying someones wages.
pay for gym, brownies and cheerleading for eldest.
I was gutted to miss grand dads funural I was only grandchild not there.
Theres no sort of adhoc flexible childcare .
people who have supportive families are so lucky.
growing up my mums sisters and both grandmothers looked after us.
Mam29- but the argument about missing funerals etc applies just as much to WOHP as SAHP. In fact, arguably it can be more tricky for WOHP. When my children were small, they were in nursery from 8am to 6pm on the days I worked. If I needed to attend a funeral, I wouldn't automatically have childcare if it didnt fall on a work day. And if it did fall on a workday, I'd have to negotiate time off work and then still find flexible childcare if the funeral wasnt nearby and didn't fall neatly into the hours of 8-6. Oh and pay for the usual nursery hours on top because they had to paid for whether I was working or not.
This isn't anti SAHM at all. I just can't see the logic behind some of these arguments. If you are a SAHM you don't need childcare. The odd occasions when you might have a funeral or whatever are absolutely no different for WOHM
How can SAHPs prepare to get back to work, which is what the Govt plainly wants, if they cannot afford the childcare to allow for retraining, pounding the streets job hunting and attending interviews?
Furthermore, we use a childminder for a couple of days a week because DH is in ill health. Without him getting that break I would need to take regular unpaid time off work to take care of the kids when he has a bad spell.
Don't disagree that sahp don't need childcare. Neither do wealthy parents need financial assistance towards providing it. And at some financial level, working is as much a lifestyle choice as staying at home. I suppose someone with the same or similar income and outgoings to us might be argued to have made lifestyle choices as much as us. Unless their work is valued considerably above my contribution to our family dynamic. But largely speaking, people on this thread are trying hard not to say that.
How can SAHPs prepare to get back to work, which is what the Govt plainly wants, if they cannot afford the childcare to allow for retraining, pounding the streets job hunting and attending interviews?
But what would you propose, a Job Seeker's allowance of childcare? How much would it be capped? How would it work for ad hoc childcare which is what people tend to need for job interviews? Tricky.
I've missed loads of overseas family weddings (I am foreign born) not least because I couldn't get ad hoc childcare for a week at a time, so what? I'm not expecting the govt. to pay for that.
Ah I missed the bit about both parents have to be earning at least 10K each to get the new childcare allowance of whatever they are calling it. A lot of people cannot earn 10K due to childcare commitments but still need childcare IYSWIM. But I suppose you only get it if you pay tax but at say £10,500 your not paying a lot of tax are you? Just my musings.
Not proposing anything, just responding to the assertion that SAHPs de facto do not need subsidised childcare.
I think there's a case for saying that if subsidised childcare is going to be restricted at all, that the most needy group would be lower rate taxpayers working FT. And SAHPs one of the lower priority groups.
Maybe if I were designing a subsidy scheme that would be my starting point.
Which is fine unless they are also being hassled back to work by draconian policies.
No one is being 'hassled' back to work if they can afford to be at home and prefer that choice. If i decided i didnt want to work, and my dh agreed to fund it, then I can stay at home forever! On the other hand, when people are relying on govt money, it's absolutely right and proper that that comes with certain conditions attached. The way some people talk, youd think people who can afford to not work are being chased into jobs- which is categorically not the case.
Its an interesting point about wealth. The average house price in London is £450k for a semi. To enable you to get a mortage you would have to be earning - what £150k? Thats for a semi. Of course you dont need to live in London, however its where the high earning roles tend to be.
What about tax relief for people working in London because their costs are SO much higher than other parts of the country. And it goes on and on.
Of course being a parent is the most important job in the world. Its a shame not every one thinks this including the young female thug I saw last week slapping her toddler around the face and told to shut the fxxk up.
Whose being hassled to go back to work....
My SIL is a SAHM. Moans continually about her life and has help coming out of her ears. Her DH is a very high earner so they can afford it but I get bored hearing about day to day problems being esclated to mass disasters!
You know about the UC conditions presumably? A SAHP claiming UC at a certain level is required to seek work. Fine. In that case it would be reasonable to say that subsidised childcare should be applicable to SAHPs who are trying to do just that but struggling to combine it with 24/7 parenting.
no - WOHP parents don't get extra help when they are job hunting.
Grown ups with school age children expected to look for working fitting in with school hours IS REALLY NOT A BIG ASK
WOHPs will get subsidised childcare! I can't bothered to argue on yet another don't bother me, I'm alright Jack thread.
Where does everyone think paying for SAHP's is going to come from.....
WOHPs will get subsidised childcare!
yes - for when they are at work
Its getting a bit silly, someone makes a lifestyle choice to stay at home (and have no childcare costs) and then whines that they need to be paid for childcare...
"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."
But, OP, these are things that all parents do, some in addition to a full time job. WOHP rarely get "time off" for themselves when children are young because they are either working outside the home, or being a parent at home.
I can't read your posts very well but this really rankled with me. And, no, you are not being attacked. You are lucky you can afford to run a family on one income. Many low waged families have to work full time, just to survive and they will be better off if childcare costs are reduced.
Both my DH and myself share the school runs and of course attend parents evenings (they are not that often!). Honestly, housework, cooking, food shopping - these are just normal tasks. They are not exclusive to SAHP's
Gym is attractive though....
I honestly know my life would be much easier if I didnt work and stayed at home. But we made a choice and have stuck by it.
Its funny. I hope to do 40 years service eventually and it staggers me how many SAHM's say how lucky I am to have a pension like this - err - no I am not lucky - I have worked for hopefully 40 years.... You dont get it if you dont do the years! Or maybe some are thinking that you do.....
So SAHPs trying to retrain or looking for work should just take their children along to the library for studying, and take them along to job interviews. Rather than be able to make use of the childcare voucher scheme via their taxpaying partner. Yes when you put it like that it really does make sense to take yet another allowance away from families who already pay comparably more tax.
Childcare for training or interview time is an investment, like any other training or commuting costs, there are already limited subsidies on those, too. I said (somewhere, one of these threads) that maybe JSA claimants should be allowed some childcare subsidy, but would need to be pretty strictly limited.
Under the old scheme, SAHPs who were merely bored of raising little Tarquin could send him to nursery on the taxpayer, that wasn't very fair, either.
If kid over 3yo use the 15hr a week to attend library and study
For interview,important appt etc do what the rest of us do,get someone/dp watch kids
Presumably if study/interview lead to employment the housewife would need childcare anyway
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?
I haven't spouted any prejudice- I've stated that this system
Is NOT an attack on SAHM. And no one has right to subsidised childcare full stop. Heavens, it isn't that long since it didnt exist at all. I reckon some
Older mums on here, who paid their childcare entirely out of taxed
Income would chew their arms off for the 15 hours free care which is available nowadays. It seems the more people
Are given, the more some people moan...
As I said on a previous thread. I have had some experience in recruiting for a part time role. Should have had a ton of responses and did. Some of which had nothing to say about what they could offer and I threw in the bin mispelt CV's.
I knew the role was going to attract women looking to go back to work. We decided to interview 10.
Three didnt turn up, one rang to say that despite the interview being set for one day asked if she could come seperately as she needed to take her child to the GP and one came to the interview asking if she could do the role at home because she would then be able to look after her two under 5's at the same time...., We employed a man in the end.....
I mean I take it all you supposedly intelligent working women do understand the concept of a tax deductable expense? Well bollocks to this thread anyway. I have pointed out reasons why a SAHP may need to benefit from a modest reduction in childcare costs, in order to try to get that all important paying job, and STILL I get shouted down. I give up, I really do. Just you carry on congratulating yourselves and let the poor foot the bill for your double lifestyle choices instead.
Hand up - I paid a lot of childcare out of taxable income and when the changes came in - well £243 isnt that much relief when you are paying nearly £1500 per month.
all these decisions and threads are a smokescreen to what is actually happening
we also have people discussing feminism and why these women become sahms and in the same breath a father who is working with wife/partner at home (for whatever reason) cannot claim the vouchers or costs towards childcare - why not? do they not qualify as a parent somehow? double standards/1950s
I ahve said before I have only recently become a sahm, mine are 13, 11 and 5. The eldest has severe and complex disabilities including medical. I get no family support. We could often do with childcare, but we have never been able to claim it - even when I was working, which is a shame because the taxpayer still has to pay for it but it comes out of social services budget instead <sigh>
In Wales it is 10 hours free care. And only in some cases from the age of nearly 4. Why should families who choose to have two earners get more than those free hours?
Actually gaelic - taxpayers are funding your lifestyle choice. How is it that some people do manage to get a role when others dont. Just look at my previous post where I mention recruiting for a part time role. Its just the sense of entitlement that I found so shocking and the ones that didnt even bother to turn up clearly didnt want the role.
Doesnt Wales and Scotland have free prescriptions for all and I know that Scotland has no university fees for people in Scotland so it is swings and roundabouts.
And gaelic - why should a SAHM get free childcare? They have chosen to stay at home. We would all like to do certain things without children. A trip to a supermarket comes to light but surely you arent suggesting that someone else pays for this luxury. If you really cannot manage what about online supermarkets...
And the reason that two earners get more is that they put more in.....
If I didnt work and became a SAHM I wouldnt pay my tax because I wouldnt have any income.
Oh change the record maisiejoe. Taxpayers are not funding my family any more than yours. I can't believe I am wasting my time conversing with people like you frankly.
I must admit I do wonder sometimes how many of these working mums that slate sahms use their own mothers and mother in laws for childcare anyway because having been a working mum myself and have friends who are, I know a very high percentage rely on their own mums/mils and yetthese threads never reflect that
As I said further up, I know many mothers who have recently gone back to work for low paid, school hours jobs. Many have said that they just want to make up their lost child benefit payments. Surely this is going to make it much harder for families where no one works or where one works for very low pay to secure work for themselves.
I never did btw, rely on my mother or mil. Chance would have been a fine thing
maisiejoe, what about the childrens father? why can he not claim them if he pays tax?
<shouts very loudly> SAHPs may benefit from a small subsidy, via their earning partner, that helps them get the job you believe so deeply they should have! How you can object to that is beyond me quite frankly, but then almost nothing surprises me on here any more.
"And gaelic - why should a SAHM get free childcare? They have chosen to stay at home. We would all like to do certain things without children. A trip to a supermarket comes to light but surely you arent suggesting that someone else pays for this luxury. If you really cannot manage what about online supermarkets... "
Why should a worker get subsidised child are? Do they not get a salary in recompense for the work they do?
I've ft nursery nice 6mth old,dont use granny.it's too long a day up at 6am
I think that two high earning parents claiming a child care subsidy is greedy, particularly when there are many families with bugger all.
Maisie joe get off your high horse.
I used to be store manager pre kida and after no1.
As an employer in retail I employed and interveiwed lots of mums wanting part time jobs.
Yes there were some who were hard work or dident seem overly keen but thats no reason to tar all other sahm mums with same brush.
I think sometimes the longet they been out of job market harder it is for them they lose confidence, worry how they will balance it and need to reskill and retrain.
Surly unemployed people have great sense oif entitlement than middle income mum who receives no more than child benefit.
Gaelic sheep you make good points.
why intelligant women cant see the unfairness of it,
why we suddenly enemy no 1.
I had no idea that childcare was less in wales. Noticed lot of primarys have state nursery class which is rare here its either prechool or private day nusery. Will ask my welsh freinds.
One freind who worked part time and her husband used to get childcare element or tax credits but thats gone since last april.
jesus, where else in the world does anyone use the words "lifestyle choice" apart from being arsey on mumsnet?
Conversely a housewife who's economically inactive doesn't need free childcare
Working parents are engine of economy,who make financial contribution unlike housewives
Oh I agree. Sahms don't need free child are. Working parents don't need subsidised child care. Is it better for someone who feels financially worse off working, to work?
sm have you mentioned precious moments yet?
She possibly off having one at the moment ;)
do they scottishmummy? I eventually got to a point where I had to take on hours below the tax threshold. Was I an engine of economy? and like mam29, I worked as a manager in retail too. I was not alone in working below the tax threshold
Good points owl lady.
1 higher rate taxpayer makes a significant contribution they are a parent the dad has just as much responsability inrelationship child is 50/50 so changes with childcare vouchers are wrong.
I hate goerge osourne raises good point. I know lots middleclass mums who dont need trhe 2nd incokme who have term time jobs.
Owl lady I think same thing most of mums I kmow ho work fully amdit they couldent do so without family.
How have the two high earning parents got to that position if there are no roles as some claim.
If you choose to SAHM you have huge benefits in terms of the family. Your DP can concentrate on their career without having to worry about doing the pick up every Monday because you have a team meeting. You can always make school meetings and parents evenings.
During the day for the vast majority your time is your own. Please dont start quoting cooking, washing etc that you need to do. We ALL need to do that. Someone earlier said that once they had done the school runs, the food shopping, the cooking and going to the gym (!!) there was little time to do anything else.....
And actually it is quite unusual to have two high earning parents. Childcare is so expensive it often isnt worth one parent working (which tbh is another issue).
Yawn.has any mentioned giving it all up to raise own kids,why have em to let strangers raise
when will you mention precious moments am waiting
May I throw in the word "orphanages"?
SAHP's don't need child care , but neither do wealthy dual income families.
Another realistic scenario here might be the higher rate tax paying parent gets made redundant. If the other parent works, surely they will need some childcare to find their next job. After all, they've been paying shed loads of tax for years. Why should that tap suddenly be turned off for them now, particularly at a time when they would be in greatest need.
I'm no biting,you're too obvious
I have never slated childcare, I have had to use it myself
but I have managed teams of women and most of them rely on family for childcare. It might be because it's lower paid, local work though. But surely any help in childcare should be directed at these women?
Just playing along with you on this topic I tend to agree with you
Mam - how can you say that lots of middle class Mums dont need a 2nd income. How can you judge that. Maybe you would like to judge me. I work to opt out of the state system because the options dont work for us. I dont expect others to pay for that choice.
What is so wrong with that. People work for all sorts of reasons. To gain independence and not necessarily rely on their partner.
Maisiejoe - you sound very unhappy and bitter
Yes I have no problem with working families receiving subsidised child are. But it needs to be targeted. At the moment it seems that rich dual earning families are benefiting while lower earning families with a sahp are the one making the sacrifice
god everyone thinks they are middle class these days anyway, how do most people define it?
yes i am sick of football
Fine ah Ken,I might bite for bit biddulph
And what is wealthy. In London the average house price for a semi is £450k. Who are we to judge.
Biddulph being the one who said children were scarred for life by being away from their mothers for any more than twenty minuts under the age of five? Ok I paraphrase bu it was something like that
Yes owllady, me too. 8, 0, apparently, what ever that means
canny be arsed with him, too much effort for me
well the footies nearly finished, we're getting beat but at least we're playin a real team
Unhappy and bitter about what? I am more than happy with my choices.
So you agree then maisiejoe, that a single income family on 50k in London are not wealthy enough to lose child benefit?
An interesting observation: there are always some women on these threads who claim that they 'have' to stay home to support their high earning husband. They have to run the house, do x, y and z and basically there's no way they can possibly work because their dh is such a high flier, and isn't it unfair that they lose out on CB etc
Yet these same women are belly aching about families where both parents earn good incomes and still retain some benefits. Doesn't it occur to them that actually, these families are juggling all the things the SAHM in the earlier scenario are doing, but with a shed load MORE expense and a shed load LESS time. Childcare, commute.... And they are going to be contributing a hell
Of a lot more than they're taking out of the pot anyway.
It does seem a bit ironic that some mums honestly believe life with a good earning husband necessitates them being at home because it's all
So diffiicult, but begrudge families where BOTH parents are in this type of job a bit of a break
i have said to my son, who has lost interest and is playing with the dog, 'i bet you wish every england game was like this' and well apparently not because he is bored
Biddulph came on mn got a total pasting.the child care damages dem brains
Also, maisiejoe, has it never occurred to you that dual income rich families are part of the reason house prices are catastrophic. It just adds more fuel to the fire if you ask me.
tbh it is difficult for me and i wish I could work. I don't stay at home for my husband, i stay at home for my daughter
But Janet why does a bit of a break for these families mean cash?
I do take your point though
owllady, england are playing a team where the guys in it have jobs
"let the poor foot the bill for your double lifestyle choices"
Umm gaelic DH and I have both WOH ,never used childcare and have worked every shitty shift going to pay for our DC and our lifestyle.
You know nights,weekends,bank holidays,christmas so fuck right off and stop shouting .
Janey , sorry, autocorrect
I actually think anyone working in London could do with some relief. Its not going to happen so I am not going to lose any sleep over it but I work with two people who pay £3k and £4k on season tickets alone!
Generally people outside London wouldnt dream of paying these sorts of costs.
yes i know ssd, my dh has told me this, one is a bank clerk apparently
ds is a lazy sod and he offered to make tea for a month if san marino scored...once
I don't think Maisiejo comes across as unhappy and bitter at all. Absolutely no evidence of that in her posts.
Perhaps that accusation is just a cheap shot because, of course, mums who have careers aren't really allowed to be happy and have well adjusted children are they...? Sheesh.....
maisiejoe, a lot of people who take fairly well paid jobs get help with their transport tickets <have lived in the commuter belt too long> those on lower paid jobs generally don't
why is old vouchers split into
basic rate tax payers
no min wage/salary
higher rate tax payers get less.
low paid wprkers earning under 10k not eligible.
the high rate tax payer better off under new sytem if they have more than one child.
for gods sake
And actually it is quite unusual to have two high earning parents. Childcare is so expensive it often isnt worth one parent working (which tbh is another issue).
some sahm even with new rules cant afford to go back as 1200 per child small unrealistic fraction of what childcare costs.
most mums work part time min wage under 10k part time jobs.
Thats possibly fine of their partner is low earner too as think instead of new 1200 quid childcare the childcare element of tax credits pays up to 70%of their childcare costs.
But for the wife of middle earner ie anyone over 35 this year 32k next and has nore than 1child using no family and using a nursery will be worse off going back to work.
If you cannot see this then you not as intelligent as you think.
All im saying is stop judging be objective and look at thefacts,
middleclass mums are not getting handouts left right and centre.
all they getting is child benefit which everyone gets under 60 but if duel 98k then they get it too and possibly like me might be saving £40-80 a month on vouhcres from one parent earning and using their own salary to swop for vouchers .
In addition to this all 3year olds term after 3rd birthday gets free 15hours which is elgible to all regardless of income.
so the 2parents earning 90k between them.
get child benefit
1200quid per child
and the free 15hours
My daughters preschool is really struggling with low numbers as most are waiting for free grant and cant afford the fees.
It is however great for tehir development the 3hour sessions they there cant drop off, work then pickup with 3hours so I never really veiwed preschool as childcare its about getting them prepared for school.
janey, i think you are going over the top, we are only talking about football
maisie christ what team do they support
Some have a chip on their shoulder about high earning dual income families.
Somehow it doesnt seem fair to them. How on earth did they think they got to those positions!
There will of course always be a reason why it cannot be them.
Lol,the housewives have their wage slave to finance their lifestyle choice
janey68 - I have a full time career. Maisiejoe gives the distinct impression that she envies SAHMs.
maisiejoe, some people have a chip on their shoulder about families with one high earner and a SAHP!
Really Gaelic? I didn't read that into maisies posts at all.
Mam - I am not sure I follow your last post.....
I work for a very large blue chip and I can confirm that here. You get an interest free season ticket loan, the two I work with earn approx £50k but no way does the company pay any of it. And my God! £3k and £4k out of taxable income just to get to work!!
scottishmummy, by wage slave, do you mean husband? or did you mean to so rude?
What I do have an issue with tbh is a SAHP putting their hand out for child care costs when they are the child carer. How does that work?
But what about working parents putting their hand out for child care costs when they're getting paid cash for that job they do
My dh has huge commuting costs btw. Why can't that attract tax relief. Don't tell me, it's a life style choice that trains are so effing expensive.
ssd, been here a while now, lurking mainly, but couldn't resist this one!
Oh mirth the pithy mn did you meant be so rude
Well yes I did.and btw wage slave was what a housewife on other thread called workers
SPB, because a working parent is paying tax and a SAHP isnt. Please dont lets count other people paying tax on your 'behalf'.
I am old... My children span a large gap. When I had my first in the mists of time there was no help. I went back to work full time while dc1 was 12 weeks. That was because the £152 I contributed after costs was needed to pay bills and to live. I have had more children and have worked full time, part time and currently 32 hours a week (not sure what that is!). Over the time span I have had my children I have seen a culture of 'entitlement' grow. I do not want to go back to dc1 days when there was no help but I support any system that benefits 2 working parents.
I agree that a gov giving some sort of tax relief on commuting costs could be onto a winner.
Maisiejoe - my DH doesn't put his hand out. I do, as a taxpayer same as you, to give him a break for a few hours a week and keep him well enough most of the time. It helps me keep my job and keep paying those lovely taxes. Same as it helps you keep your job. The difference is what exactly?
Sonnet - I am oldish too... And yes, I agree there is a sense of entitlement to make your choices and allow 'someone' else to pay for them.
But most Sahps are within families where tax is being paid. Sometimes more tha. Dual worker families
I dont know why they work funnily enough I dont ask,
but theres huge shortage of jobs,
noticed pecking order of jobs too.
As I said retail is mostly unsociable hours low national min wage pay few benefits.
cleaners and dinner ladies-mostly again lower sociio economic groups.
classroom assistants mostly middle class homeowners , nice car wealthy husbands they work to keep them occupied.
Public sector part time no skilled jobs ie care/porter better pay and benefits at least.
skilled public sector workers nurses /teachers.
Lot of professional jobs do allow mum to go back part time after kids and still get fairly good wage pro rata.
I couldent be a part time store manager so gave it up,
many mums cant afford to retrain as courses so pricey and now no support with chidl care.
I reckon this means that the ones at the lower end will always be in lower paid non skilled jobs its so much harder in uk these days to move up.
Like I hate george osbourne says its quite likly if sahm rents they its impossible to get on housing ladder even if her husband earns reasonably decent amount.
Sahm mums are not attacking working mums for working.
what we attacking is governenmentspolicy of giving those on very high wages help its senseless if we so broke and all in this together which clearly we not as this thread demonstrates.
Sorry gaelic- give who a break? All parents would love some time to do their own things, whether that be going to have a coffee in peace to doing the supermarket shopping without constantly checking the kids. Surely you arent suggesting that we pay people to have a little rest....
And how does that help me keep my job.
I've lost count of the number of times I have stated that my DH is ill. You ate being needlessly unpleasant and really quite dense.
Yes, SPBindisguise, my dh pays loads of tax. We don't begrudge it at all. However, we are a family unit. Why can't the tax system recognise this? After all, I can't claim any benefits due to his salary, so why can't he off set my tax allowance against his salary?
Anyway, I'm off to do the washing up, as this particular SAHM has done bugger all today
Childcare vouchers presumably help you keep your job Maisiejoe.
I think this family unit and what is a family unit could be the reason why no government could offer it. In previous generations children generally came within marriage. Now your boyfriend/partner could be someone you met last night and the divorce rate is so high that it would be impossible to manage it.
And gaelic - I am sorry about your DH but I cannot remember all of your posts in great detail. All I can do is put my point of view across which is clearly not the same as yours but there is no need to accuse me of being bitter and unhappy because I dont agree with you.....
Mam29 I would actually pay to have your lifestyle, it sounds lovely. Kids at nursery, planning for baby number 3, time to go to the gym - as I say, I would pay money for that, I certainly wouldn't expect someone to subsidise me having it!
I'm a single parent who works, I have no help from family. And contrary to what your moaning post about how busy you are seems to imply, the fairies don't come and do all my shopping/cooking/cleaning while I'm at work. I do it, after the kids are asleep. On my own. And very tiring it is too.
I hate this government as much as anyone, and the system is unfair in many ways, but the bottom line is that you have it easy. So enjoy it.
Actually at the beginning I didnt have any childcare vouchers. It was a fraction of the costs so therefore it didnt help me keep my job.... And now I dont use them. My children are too old for childcare.
I am fighting for those it will affect. It is the right way forward.
This government have certainly done a splendid job of divide and conquer
Same here maisiejoe
I see my younger colleagues and how bloody difficult it is for them.
Oh blimey I missed that it was Mam29 who said she had no time to herself after the cooking, cleaning and the gym (!!) Lucky her!
Wish I had time to go to the gym.....Have you seen gym prices... And we couldnt afford to have Baby 3....
You are very vociferous in your criticosm of SAHMs and you list in great detail things you perceive they can do which you cannot. I don't blame you for being envious. I am often envious of DH until I remember his life as a SAHD is much harder as mine, even in a demanding job.
The thing that has seriously wound me up is the total failure to realise that a small amount of money can sometimes really help someone climb out of a situation where they do NOT wish to stay at home long term. And worse, the outrage expressed by some people that anyone should be given any help at all to achieve something that they themselves already have ie a job.
I am not planning no3.
I have 3kids youngest 2 in 2weeks time.
I dont go gym so you mixing me up with someone else.
I dont have any disposble income apart from child benefit which funds kids clothesm school dinners, hobbies ect,
My husand works so many hours its just me,
no family help
I did wonder maisie how you manage school pickups, school activities in days ie church, plays, and helped with homework then I read you send yours to boarding school at your cost but you dont have the same worries when working.
Dont all private schools have charitble status?
Are you referring to me Gaelic? Where on earth I have said I am envious of SAHP's??
I could of course give up work. However we then wouldnt be able to afford the house, private education etc. Our choice. And actually I do like working, I like the independance it gives me and having financially contributed to the house. There are some downsides such as not being able to attend the various school meetings, driving the kids to friends houses etc but we have managed. There are a few working mothers and they are on my speed dial and I am on their's.
I definitely can't afford to go to the gym. Haven't been since 2002!. Didn't like it then much to be honest
Gaelic- you seem obsessed with believing that WOHM are envious of those without jobs.
Why do you find it so hard to accept that not everyone feels the same as you?
Clearly you feel that your j
Gaelic I could see your point if SAHMs wanted help with child care while they were training for a career, or going in job interviews etc. But I know many SAHMs and most of them spend their child-free time shopping, doing housework, and generally managing household issues, which working mums have to fit in around their jobs, with the kids in tow. And most of them manage to find some time to go to the gym, meet friends, go clothes shopping - activities that many working mums simply have to sacrifice.
I dont know many who can affird gym and find the time.
I havent seen anyone say that apart from maisie who appeared to read it somewhere or maybe over exagerate the story for extra effect to anger people.
we make significant financial sacrafice being one income.
School run takes me hour each way with toddlers in tow.
we shop adlis/lidls
daughter takes mostly packed lunch.
I biy lots 2nd habnd stuff and sell on stuff they outgrown or sometimes give stuff away to people who need it.
One goes to senior boarding. The other still attends day school. However it hasnt always been like that! At one time they were just babies just like everyone else's! And the childcare was shocking. It is only because I am a higher rate tax payer and so is my DH that we could afford it but I am tired of people seemingly thinking that somehow I have ended up with this and I dont deserve it.
And yes, private schools have charitable status. The other thing to be aware of is that if all private schools were closed the state system would not be able to cope with the influx.
Oops posted too soon. Gaelic- You say you are envious of your dh for being a SAHP. (though at the same time you think your job is easier than being at home..)
Not everyone wants to give up their work. Having a job does not automatically make you envious of people without one
I dont want to give up work!
ImagineJL - I would not be as bothered about this were it were not for the fact that the Government is vilifying SAHPs in families that need to claim tax credits, forcing them to seek jobs that do exist, and then removing one of the only means of possible help to making job seeking that little bit easier and cheaper for the SAHP concerned.
Mam29 - last post on page 2, you said you worked a "shift that never seems to end", doing "school runs, parents evening, gym, food shopping, preschool admin, housework and cooking".
Apart from pre school admin (not sure what that is), and obviously "gym", I do all those things, and I work too.
I know this isn't a competition for who has the harder life, but really I don't think you personally have much to complain about.
Yes janey68, I have mixed feelings which is perfectly possible. I feel guilty for not being there for my children, especially now my mum is very ill and I find myself reassessing priorities. I miss the opportunity to take part in school events during working hours and I regret not doing the "mummy" things I always thought I would do. At the same time I recognise what a difficult job it is being a SAHP. Bear in mind we have a 6 year old and a 2 year old so I am coming from a very different perspective from some of you. My DH's day is spent running around after said toddler all day long and she very rarely takes a nap, and most days he feels like crap. So when I think about this I feel fortunate that my life is generally somewhat easier, and I at least get to go to the toilet by myself during the working day.
I guess it depends what your job is like. People sometimes knock on the door when I'm in the toilet at work, and I come out to a queue of people wanting my help. I'd have a toddler following me around any day!
Crossed post Imagine. Mam did mention the gym although she has accused me of making it up! And what is pre-school admin....
As a SAHM, many parents tell me that I am really lucky to be able to afford to do so. I agree that I am very lucky. But at the same time, many of the parents saying this live in massive houses, with huge 4 x 4s. They go skiing in the winter and Europe in the summer. They stay in holiday cottages in Devon and Cornwall during half terms. We don't do any of those things, and I appreciate that they have more money because both work, but we, as a family have made considerable sacrifice for me to stay at home, as it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. We have no money for holidays, treats, etc and buy second hand. We just about get by. Have just spent £500 getting 12 year old car through mot as can't afford a new one. I know that if I worked we'd have more money, but dh does very long hours. He's up at 5am and home at 8pm. Sometimes he's away and works weekends. We too have no family to rely on what so ever. I sacrificed a good career to stay at home. My choice I know, but it's not always a bed of roses. People tell me I'm lucky, but they wouldn't want to sacrifice their nice houses, holidays, cars, etc.
And I admit, I'd love to be a SAHM, I really would. Which is probably why I get so stroppy when SAHMs moan about their lot. Especially one particularly awful MNer (not on this thread thankfully) who refers to people "choosing to bring up their own children".
Well if I didn't work I'd have to live on benefits, not just skip a few holidays and have an old car, because I'm a single parent. So to me you are lucky!
But both working parents will only get 4-5 weeks hols per year. Where are they fitting in all these holidays... I can fit in two hols a year but always keep something back for emergencies.
And high earning parents are very unlikely to have to leave the Blackberries or lap tops at home. My DH brings his on every holiday. Its a price to pay tbh.
Ohgaelic You are being a good mother - you provide for your DC
Dont feel guilty, your DH is just as much a parent as you are and your DC will be fine .
My DH is ill although he is still able to WOH
look maisie joe im not judging you.
Its great you have such a well paid job im guessing quite highly skilled to command a good salary.
Did you do a degree funded by the state?
As I was first year at uni to pay tuition fees and need loan.
I came from low income single parent family.
Schools are you choice but the charitible status is huge perk to the wealthy.
One thing I learnt about life is its all about right time right place,
I dont see why you have to ne so nasty and judgemental about sahm mums hen you know nothing about their family or their lifestyle.
Its not like we teen mums who never worked paid in and getting house and loads we not getting a lot and making choice to be worse off as maybe our career is not as well paid and now harder to upskill to get better paid job.
Not everyone can be high earners
those under 10k cant get this vouchers.
single earner paying 100k cant get these vouchers and they pay shed loads of tax.
The things is, as ever, there are so many different situations. Some people know loads of SAHMs who spend their time (and their DH's money) shopping, getting their nails done, etc. I know none of these. I only know of SAHMs and SAHDs who have preschoolers and are often in that position due to the prohibitive cost of childcare, or illness, or both.
The ones that spring immediately to mind with all the holidays have their own businesses, maisiejo. My dh also takes his blackberry and laptop if we go away. I am not free from that either. Threatened to throw it out of the window once during an argument driving down the M5
anotheryearolder - oh it's alright, I'm on a massive downer at the moment due to my mum's diagnosis. But really my point is that despite admitting to feeling envious of SAHMs sometimes I still try not to be bitter about a small amount of help they might get, because I recognise what a bloody hard job it is! And of course as a SAHD DH needs that help too. As I've said earlier, after recent events if we couldn't put DD with the childminder a couple of days a week I really think I would have had to leave this job.
Actually I didnt go to uni at all. I went to a rubbish sec modern which I wouldnt wish on anyone. I have done Ok. Waited late to get married and have children. No previous partnerships and neither has my DH so conseqently so maintenance payments to anyone. Brought up by a single parent so no I didnt do a degree funded by the state.
What I did choose to do is work full time to fund a better education system for the children.
And if the charitiable status was taken away the local schools would be bombarded and wouldnt be able to cope. And have you thought that the status allows schools to offer busaries and funds pupils who cannot afford the fees.
I dont ask for my tax back for not using the state system even though I am entitled to a place. I know that's not how tax works.
When you go through a rubbish experience yourself surely you cannot be blamed for wanting better for your children.
I agree Gaelic, and it's always wrong to judge and make sweeping generalisations. I admit I come to these threads with my own issues, which are that I'm wracked with guilt at having to leave my kids to go to work, and desperately envious of the SAHPs who are able to attend every school function without months of planning and hoping they can get the time off. Especially when half the time the don't turn up anyway because it clashes with their weekly spinning class! I guess we all have our own agendas and gripes.
It may have been mentioned before now on here but do single parents get the full subsidy? If so, I think that that is an advantage of the new system. It was a bit rubbish before that single parents - who had half the wages but the same childcare costs - could only get half the tax subsidy.
I dont think its wise to look at what others have and think they are living a fancy lifestyle.
Its not always what it seems and I know 2 couples who live the seemingly high life when in fact they have both confided in me that they have huge interest only mortgages ,debts,and it could all come tumbling down.
Outward appearances can be deceptive
Very true anotheryearolder.
Ok see where you coming from you misunderstood.
its not gym for me.
its afterschool gym for my 7year old daughter.
most preschools are charitys.
For the charity to run they need commitee of 12members in order to run.
I thourght it be similar to pta but its very similar to being a school governer.
Ever one assigned their role sadly mines treasuer as no one else wanted it and I had experience.
preschool admin for me involves
checking bank balances reguarly
checking cashbook matches up with bank statement
paying in cheques ie expense
banking money from funraising
co signing checks
have several spreadsheets to updat as have to prepare annual forcasted budget.
Update no of sessions whos fees, grants, lunchclubs.
look into and apply for grants.
submitting end of year accounts to charities commision.
preparing a business plan.
helping formulate policies.
heloing out at fundarising events.
helping out at preschool events trips, nativity, sports day as well as on rota once per term.
attend genral commitee meetings and monthly finance meetings sometimes they go on 2hours+
most of time with 2young toddlers in house obky time i get this done is when they in bed staying up late.
on a good week takes me an hour,
but some weeks can take many hours as have to prepare amonthly financial report to before meetings.
lots people changing their hours.sessions.
I do this for free.
I used to do school pta,
Im also trained peer supporter at breastfeeding group 2-4hours a month at local clinic.
I have on ocassion supported freind who worked part time wit her childcare ie pick her daughter up from school or taken kids to parties ect.
Holiday whats that. There are years we not gone.
we havent been abroad with the kids.
Round here - South Bucks there are lots of SAHM getting their nails done! There are 100's of nail bars and having used one a few months ago you would be surprised who use them. Posted on another thread about two young women with a 8 year old in tow on benefits who were there when I went (every one knew because they kept shouting to each other across the salon!).
It was a school day and all of them had their nails done with their loyalty card. So its not just 'rich' people using what I really do consider a luxury!
I agree that there are many different situations. But one thing I have noticed is that the accusation of being 'envious' is levelled by SAHM at WOHM, whereas I don't see it the other way round. WOHM have disagreed over tax breaks and subsidies, but there hasn't been this automatic assumption that other people must envy them.
I work. I don't assume that all SAHM envy me. Most SAHM I know are doing it because they prefer it to working. It just seems rather odd that they can't accept that WOHM often prefer to work. Indeed, many of us have carried on working despite forking out shed loads on childcare because we value our work life
OK, so here's the thing:
A couple earning £298,000 between them is eligible for the subsidy
A couple struggling to get by, both working but where one parent has just managed to secure a part time job earning less than £10,000 will not be eligible
surely enough said?
Another year- very true. A lot of people think that if you have money (hence the knocking here of high earners especially dual income) your troubles are over.
I dont get paid this salary and neither does DH for doing a 9-5 job.
Ok, who knows a dual income family earning £300K??
Honestly...... its a red herring.
I dont btw - I know men (and it is men sadly) who earn this but normally at that level with a few children the women does the household/childcare.
gaelic I agree that is unfair
It's the principle of it though, it sends all the wrong messages. The cut off should be the point at which it is deemed that the second salary is self supporting and yields sufficient benefit to make it worthwhile taking into account childcare costs. That is surely well below £150k! It is the people who want to take a job, any job, to get them back in the employment market gaining experience who need the help more than anyone else. These are the people who are prevented from working because the childcare costs would cost more than they earn. They are the ones who need a childcare subsidy. I fail to understand why that is being denied to them.
It does seem that single parents will get the full subsidy. That I do agree with. I also see they are considering including people in full time education and carers/disabled. Let's hope they do.
I dont begrudge wanting better dont we all for our kids,
last year moved my eldest from poorly performing state school to one 1.2miles away and I dont drive,
Its harder these days for people to move up the career ladder most involve degree with exception starting own business its very hard.
i dont know any sahm who go salon, or spinning classes maybe its just area im in.
most drop off older child at school,, then have preschool run some are morning some are afternoon, squeeze in lunch homework, afternoon school pickup then any clubs , parties or playdates they have,
then tea, bath, bed homework very mundane.
today have had all 3at home as they all sick,
hubby left 6.30am dident get in until 9am
house was tidy, tea was in kicthen ready to be warmed up.
kids fed, washed and in bed,
feel like I have cabin fever as not been out.
Its very isolating being at home especially when i ha edlet none of my freindss had kid I was 25 and new to the area.
I have 2year check booked with hv as have some worries about my little boys speech. Hesvery slingy which is why inconsidered him in preschool 3hours a week.
I was being pedantic about charitble status was just saying if we looked hard eneough we could all state ogg you get this and I dont that is life.
Things look different from outside. money does not always =happiness. I imagine its helps and makes life bit less stressful.
I don't know any couples earning £298000 between them, but I'm damn sure that those who do, work their arses off, probably provide employment for a nanny and cleaner, pay masses of tax each, and put far more into the pot than they take out. Hats off to them. I wouldn't want the pressure of earning £149000, having a dh doing the same AND juggling a household and children. I'm certainly not begrudging any such family (and there can't be many) a bit back out of the thousands they pay each year into public funds
Your day sounds very much like mine mam29
mmm, im guessing 2 higher earners south east would be
mps- I can think of a few
bankers if you include their bonuses too
celebrities i mean the minor ones may make 150k a year .
janey68 - I do when it takes it out of the pockets of those who need it far much more. To a couple on that kind of money £1200 a year is pin money. For the people I mention it is a lifeline.
money doesnt always = happiness but it does give me choices and I can sleep at night without worrying about how I will pay the bills.
I have been poor and not having to worry is worth more to me than any fancy car or sking holiday.
I just dont value those things at all.
Yes Janey - totally agree. I see the seniors a few levels above me earning this sort of money and honestly - I couldnt do it. And if two people in the SAME family are doing it well bearing in mind how demanding roles are now a nervous breakdown beckons.
No one has mentioned that if you work you will need to employ someone to do the childcare. That is creating roles. You might have a cleaner. I havent got one as we were just let down time and time again but them not turning up with no notice. It was the days when cleaners were in great demand and they effectively choose you!
Now I put the money we paid into our holiday fund and I do the cleaning. Its really not that bad tbh and wouldnt go back to using a cleaner again...
No anotheryearolder, my dh and I are not in the least bit materialistic and I worry sometimes that I am missing something. It makes trying to join in with some conversations very difficult, as I just cannot relate.
Dont both need to be earning so unless both are bankers they wouldnt be eligble and going to a private school I see lots of investment bankers. I dont know any of their wives that work....
I used to know several couples where both partners earned £100k-£150k+, and then DCs come along and the mother's career got sidelined either because (1) mother chose to stay at home or (2) mother moved to a part time role, for less pay. I only know one such couple where the mother went back full time and they really do not need any help - £1200 is a drop in the ocean to them, a new handbag or golf weekend.
I am in the category (2) above, and I do not think DH and I should get state help with our childcare, we do not need it. I think the cut off should be consistent with CB
I hate george osbourne- like ground hog day and just for fun of it theirs
school masses missed today as eldest off work.
yesterday thankfully hubby was back from his work trip and day off as 5pm had emergency doctors appointment for youngest.
it ran late and eldests needed picking up from gym at 5.45 and middle child nursery at 6.
I cant always split myself 3ways,
It meant me missing middle ones parents evening and having to reschedule.
eldest was in school, yesterday an had go see childs work son sent husband as had very sick toddler at home .
for fun of it they throw in random non unform days and outfits.
comic relief, world book day, children in need.
monthly cake sales.-im crap at baking.
rainbows like parents to volunteer once a term.
shopping I do on ocassion do online but farmfoods, aldis and lidls dont do online neither do morrisions.
Outside of south east bubble lifes very diffrent.
I couldn't ever imagine having a cleaner, but then my house is so small that it doesn't take me very long to do. It does get very cluttered though and there is never any where to put anything.
There seem to be two problems people have with this method.
The first is that there are various scenarios that the government haven't thought of. My own feeling is that they haven't bothered because folks like MN will do it for them! In six months they'll parcel together the best of these and announce a solution and pretend they thought of it themselves. (Am thinking about CB and the whole tapering thing here.)
The other one is the "moral" aspect. SAHP are feeling unvalued as a result of these changes. I'm not convinced by this tbh. Surely it is valuing SAHP to say that they don't need childcare. Otherwise they are implying that actually a SAHP (or SAHM as I can't imagine Dave knows many SAHD!) aren't really looking after their kids but instead put them in childcare so they can go to the gym and the hairdresser and generally make themselves look lovely before His Nibs rolls in on the 6:32 from Picadilly.....
I do agree that when children come along something needs to give. When we have a clash of meetings and neither of us can do a pick up my DH looks at me blankly knowing that I will sort it out!
It doesnt happen often but if it was every day something would need to change.
God I know what you mean about all the random mufti days at school and world book days, etc. There always seems to be something. Wear this, wear that. Cakes sales, Easter hats. Jesus, it never ends.
Also agree with ceeveebee btw
I didnt mean to imply you were materialistic Ihategeorge sorry if thats how it came across
I do have lots of animals but no fancy cars
Mummy - that's an interesting point. Yes, no one has said that offering childcare will indicate that their parents arent doing a good job.
Sorry, no, I didn't think you did anotheryear, I was just agreeing with you
Mam my point is that working mums have all those exact nightmares - doctors appointments that run late (I had to leave before seeing the Dr with my breast lump because she was running late and it was nearly school pick-up time), cake sales, non uniform days, Easter bonnets etc AND we have to fit in paid work as well.
There was a film I saw the other day when a working mum had to make a cake. She brought a shop brought one and messed it up a bit.
Its a bit like that in this house.....
And we all have the overunning dr's appointments and all the rest that others have listed.
oh god as middle one goes private day nursery no rest for wicked tommorow.
its the easter party and annual easter bonnet competition,
which invokved rush to local florist buy hat and chicks and ribbon im pretty sure we wont win.
also it clashes with flipping eldests freinds gym party in middle nowhere.
we planned for this so hubbsy worked lst 2weekends.
hes been away this week and having thur/sat off.
so hes doing the gym party.
But i still have to run shops tommorow as not been able to go shopping this week with sick kids to get pressie and card.
she had party earlier in week after school at softplay centre again miles away other side of city.
world book day had arguments and tantrums over costumes.
had to run to sainsburys to get red nose and go shop and get some change and bake cakes.
Havent even had time to rummage through lost property mountain this week a sshe keeps losing cardies and jumpers.
hair desperatly needs doing dying do myself but havent managed to get to flipping boots mot have 5mins yo myself this week.
Im blessed with poor sleepers, early risers and tantrums at bedtime.
I was so relived last night taht the 8pm preschool meeting was cancelled as chair was ill.
We not materialistic but we do worry about bills and how much we spend on groceries and I worry about kids shoes as so expensive .
Mam - but we all have these issues. We should be bonding over it not assuming that working parents dont have this tasks too.
Mam - do you think WOHM have a magic fairy that does all that kind of stuff for them?
When I talk about life as a SAHP being harder I am referring to the preschool years. Once school starts I truly believe it is much harder being a WOHP. Even in my case with a SAHD at home, so many of the school requirements are really female orientated and I find myself running around like a headless chicken splitting myself in two. When DD starts school I will be splitting myself in three.
mam29, you make me laugh. I could have written your post. I have decided that dd2 won't go to a bday party in the Easter holidays, as I simply can't get there without major hastle. Sometimes, you've just got to let things slide. It's not worth the stress. The dc won't mind missing the odd party. I didn't bake cakes for Easter sale this year as I simply couldn't be arsed, with looking after a very active nearly 2 year old at the same time. I normally try to make the effort, but honestly, you just can't do everything and I'm not even going to try anymore. Agree that shoes are bloody expensive. I always buy 2 half sizes bigger in sales and hope for the best!
School does seem to be pretty full on these days. I don't remember it being like that when I was a child.
I agree it must be harder when working when they school, age unless the school offers wrap around care.
Eldests old school did breckfast club£ 2.50 8am-8.55 taken to classrooms.
after school club 3.15-5.30 which was too early pickup for most parents.
But the school did have quite a few childminders.
it ran holiday club outside provider £80 a week but tehy decided to get rid of them.
new school does clubs 3.30-4.15weather dependent not 1st week of term, brekkie club use once week as cant be 2places at once on a wed.
I havent seen any childminders at news school and dont know many parents.
every school has random inset days and im doing 2schools know a few doing that due to school shortages where we live.
Maybe my cakes wouldent look so bad if 2 and 3year old dident try help me make them.
getting all 3out door on time in morning is stressful.
Shoes im jinxed as new pair broke after 6weeks and shop had shut down got some in charitry shop at xmas and they just broke.
so half way through school year and just brought another pair of clarkes for her wide chunky feet.
I love them dearly but when all 3crying at once.
throwing tantrums at same time.
I try spend one to one time with each of them
I hate toddler groups have tried.
I thourght pre staying at home I would have more time but it flys by.
I do wrote lists and some spill over to next day.
I try fit in errands go bank, postoffice, dry cleaners ect.
younger 2dont sleep through night.
Its not like I dismissed the fulltime working I did and dident work out.
Its about number crunching and unless i find specific salary even with 1200 as does not include kids5+ then its not worth me going back.
Doesn't anyone think that people who earn £50k wouldn't miss cb? My dp & I earn £30k between us. Him working full time mon-fri & I work 24 hrs over sat-sun. It's awful, we can't get a mortgage for that but I cannot change my hours due to traffic in work (royal mail) but at least I can always be there for the children when they are ill during the wk & I have income too. I have seen a career advisor who estimated if I worked full time, I would be £120 per month worse off due 2 childcare costs. Do you know the carers earn a pittance too? My best friend works in childcare & I earn more than she does from my part time job. Where does all the cash go? My aunts childcare fee for her ds is more than her mortgage payment & she still has 2 provide food. It's a catch 22 .
cookie the cash goes to the owners of the private nurseries who pay 18 yr olds £6.50 per hour
The student thing needs addressing. DH is going to be a student from September. He earns less than me and the way things are going his prospects stop here unless he retrains. So we have decided to go for it. He will get some student support which will roughly equal his current salary after travel expenses so break even. But, we will lose our childcare help from tax credits and it looks as though I may earn too much for a student childcare grant to be payable. I'm on £20k so not loaded (though I agree it's not low either). If we have to pull DS out of nursery it will be a mess. Surely the fact that average salaries for DH's new career start at £30k mean it is worth him doing this for a long term investment and a couple of years childcare help is worth it for the rest of his working life (hopefully) not needing any help? Where is the incentive to improve your lot? The same goes for part time workers. I started doing 2 hours a week and built up to the point I am at now. OK, it's not high flying but as a couple we cover all our basics apart from childcare. When DH's salary improves we can look at things like pensions and getting the house modernised to a better standard, giving ourselves a better outlook for the future. I'd rather see people who are really trying to help themselves given assistance than people on 6 figure salaries or those who are at home and able to look after the children themselves.
well said dr coconut.
I would love to retrain but high tuition fees, dricriminatry rules on retraining and no help with childcare mean I cant.
If I go out tommorow under new system get myself p/t job seena few 8hour positions going national min wage then
its be under 10k so wouldent be paying any tax.
but it also means i wont be eligible for 1200 per child even though we both working.
perhaps if both me and husand were low paid ie he earnts 12-15k get we get working tax credits which I think help top up a low paid persons wages and some help with childcare.
yet 2low paid parents be paying not very much tax .
I used to be on 20k after child no 1 and it dident stretch far after childcare.
what Im angry about and surly its obvious is
if mum goes out to work and her husband earns higher salary than they cant get 1200 as they not earning enough!Because tax credits eligibility are measured on joint income!
yet new child benefit is taken individaully which gives the anomoly of 2high paid people still getting and one on 60k not getting.
its because its too expensive to menas test so they doing it in this unfair way.
what incentive is their for a sahm with middle income husband ie to go out get part time work if they very little gain, more stress and have to pay for childcare?
Tax credits just stop employers paying decent wages as they make up shortfall.if couple are getting more in tax credits that match /equal earnings and more than the tax they paying in then whats the net benefit?
Tax credits did stipulate 16hours which recently gone up to 24hours yet employers are not increasing hours.
Think the new unversil credit does not stipulate amount of hours just that they both work yet the new childcare stipulates 10 29hours at natoional min wage which is just short of fulltime and would need childcare.
Tax credits are not income they a benefit!
I know 1single part time mum.works less than tax threshold so pays no tax, pays little ni i guess.
120quid a week tax credits for 1child/
350 maintaiance from ex does not count as income.
council tax relief not sure how much.
free school dinners -ours is 40per month!
yes shes working but shes not making huge contribution and her childs a junnior and she has family close by.
The majority of working mums I know have 1 child school age.
If i just had 1 child school age I would have returned to work but I have 2toddlers and childcare for the just too pricey.
People also assume every schools has breckfast club/after school clubs and they dont so state educational provision and nursery education is not level playing feild in uk.
The only people I hear of having nannies and au pairs are very wealthy or high income.
A few working parents use private day schools as wrap around provison is better than state and have holiday clubs as the 2nearest preps do but we cant afford private school for 3 unless both earning high salaries.
Im bit shocked at the viciousness of working mums towards sahm mums.
I believe in freedom of choice and not judging others for choices they make.
we pay for our choices by having less money but we get by.
apart from c and little bit relief on tax funded vouchers get no state help.
We not even taking into consideration costs of living different areas.
housing into account those lucky enough to get social housing pay less rent than private.
the leader of a union bob crow 200k_ a year lives in a council house.
Yes privates expensive but for those getting hosuing benefit means they have a lot more of their earnings.
we rent private and cant afford to buy.Again our choice although whn went to bank for mortgage when we both worked combined salary of 52k at time they offered us 125k which buys very little here.
banks actually look at affordability so childcare costs are taken into consideration.
Every ones making assumptions about peoples choices think its black and white its not.
OP you sound really unhappy with your life And I don't see any visciousness, but WOHMs are pointing out that doctor appointments, non uniform days, cake sales etc happen to them too.
There is a lot of listing out of roles that SAMP's undertake and often great detail regarding situations that havent gone right for them.
Well, what makes you think that if you are working and need to take a child to the GP that things will go much more smoothly. SAHP's have the day to themselves but fgs - working parents have the same problems and we either have to juggle the situation within the family or pay someone to undertake something that we just cannot manage.
With regard to claiming childcare vouchers for SAHP's - well its like me claiming the disability allowance - completely unacceptable. I am not disabled and you dont need childcare - you are the childcarer!
Gaelic - I found the complete opposite. Going to school and paying for extended care and then using our normal childmidner in the hols worked very well for us.
What I found difficult in the early days when they were babies is getting out the front door with us both working but not unmanageable.
No im not massivly unhappy.
me and hubby accept they our kids we chose them, we fund them it is what it is.
I know when they all in school chances going back will be greater as yes they will need some childcare but the bulk of it in state is free.
I have allowed hubby to move companies increased his salary by being at home.
when we both worked for same company and had 1 child in nursery be both got abuse from our area managers when went to go get her or was sick and questioned our commitment.
My area manager even rang me up saying just had another area manager rin me up saying your husbands left his store early why is this and my response he had management cover I dident and was running a store on your area so tell the other area manager to do one its not the 1950s.
Maybe its because we worked same industry and company it was more obvious.
I was made to feel very crap going back, sidelined for promotion was horrid and our marriage began to suffer.
My eldest is still very much daddys girl as between ages 1-3 she was in nursery or with daddy most of time.
we were at diffrent points in career as he was older so higher up that me where as i was told I had to prove myself!
Hes always has been the higher earner.
I was speaking to mumat party today works fulltime 3primary kids .
last out 3going to school september and she said she will miss nursery hours.
she works week and had 3parties to attend this weekend as well as catch up on housework and shopping so do understand a working a parent still has all those things.
I have yet to see many state schools working parent freindly.
she said shes had problems getting holiday care for them as they different ages and her school does not offer it.
Yes there are clubs at her school but they first come first served.
Maybe I would be in better mood if they were not giving
5%tax breaks to 150k or over from april
if the cut off joint income was 6k then have no problem its the anomoly.
The old vouchers gave higher rate tax payers less relief and the new one offers low paid part time mums nothing and allows combined salaries above 60-k to 300k to subsidise their childcare.
I think both types of mum can have it hard depending on their income, support, childcare availaible in their area raising kids is hard work and expensive so such a pity to see so much negativity towards sahm.
Theres that saying lets not judge someone until they walked in their shoes.
They atlk about europe as good model for cheaper childcare ie lets redced rations here that will improve quality and lower parents bills but fail to emntion lot of sucessful european countries and scandanavia heavily subsidise their childcare.
its more political anger and frustration not aimed at working mums I appreciate they do good job.
just so many shortsighted unfair policies.
A lot seem to lean in favour of very high earners.
I dont feel as if we all in it together.
The whole work hard and get on with failure to claifify exactly what they mean.
The big soceity long forgotton so my voluntary work does not count as contribution to the uk.
Not to mention im bringing up the little tax payers of future and ensuring they get good education to get good jobs and pay high taxes.
Its does feel like theres presies for the lowpiad cpuples.
pressies for the high paid
tough luck to those in the middle.
I voted tory.
I hate labour they made the whol nation dependent and entitled.
lib dems bit toothless
ukip agree some policies but bit racisist and no chance being in power.
I have tough choice at next election.
I dont think they understand us or many others.
I admit i was stupid when I was younger and ttc 1 i did belive I could have it all.
Now I know something has to give or you have to be fortunate
that have free family childcare
or other halfs work meshes well with yours.
I have freind ttc baby no 1
shes the higher earner she gets generous maternity pay compared to private sector, opportunity to do her role part time,more holidays.
her lazy arse husband also nhs earning 16k as a warehouse person and always on sick paid and moved 3miles down rd and gets relocation travel of 30quid a month and loads of holiday.
At moment they have comfy lifestye managed to buy house as parents gave her 10grand, go on couple holidaya abroad a year .
will be a real shock when baby arrives.
im grateful my husbands supportive and appreciates me we a team.
sometimes him in retail pays off he does some of school runs mix late and early shits means he does clubs.
he does his mothers shopping and errands for her on his day off too.
Op - some of the things you have said make me wonder if you are really understanding what the changes mean?
Firstly - I don't think this is coming in until 2015 by which point your dc2 will definitely be at school and dc3 will either be at school or at a minimum will be getting the 15 free hours. So I don't think you are affected anyway.
However, assuming I'm wrong about this....
Secondly - how many hours a week is your dc2 doing at the moment? Is he doing more than 15? Because if it is just the 15 and dc3 hasn't yet started then can you not save the money you are not paying at the moment and put it towards when dc3 starts?
Thirdly - when your husband stops buying childcare vouchers his post-tax salary will go up. Presumably by about £112 a month as that is 70% of £160. (Does anyone know if childcare vouchers are per-tax and NI or just pre-tax?) so you will still have most of the cost of the one day a week you want.
So I really think you are worrying about nothing.
Mam- just a couple of points. There is NO mileage in feeling envious of people who use family as free childcare. It often comes with disadvantages, just read MN for evidence of that, people moaning because granny feeds the kids a biscuit or lets them watch a bit of telly. Also, if you rely on family then you're up shit creek if they move, get ill or die, so it's a precarious existence if you need the money and count on freebies from family
Second- things are all relative aren't they? You see yourself as squeezed middle even though you're not working. Many people are so squeezed they can't even contemplate having one parent at home.
"I dont feel as if we all in it together."
No, and it makes you wonder if the govern,met think there is anyone out there who actually believes this! They're doing a good job pitting wohms against Sahms, strivers against shirkers, worthy disability vs fraudsters. Hyping it all up so we all hate a certain stereotype they've got us thinking is a huge problem while the very rich get quietly richer
Now they're offering rich people the opportunity to buy second or third homes with tax payers money, whilst nicely pushing up house prices for them and their mates. All first time buyers want is to be able to buy an affordable home. This government is worst than the last and I never thought I'd say that in a hurry. The rich are definitely getting much richer. The rest of us definitely are not. I can't wait until 2015.
It doesn't help that I keep reading "I heart George Osborne" which makes the things you're saying need a second read. Plus I think, we'll even if you voted for them would you really advertise it like that
SPB I loathe the man and the rest of this millionaire cabinet. I promise I didn't vote for them either and this government have made me glad of that.
I was shocked to see that there is a thread on here about people fancying George Osborne (vomit emoticon)
Mummy to katie-thanks for reassurance I know its coming in in 2015 not suer if some consulatation soon.
If hubby stays with current company then he can contnue with current status but if he changes job fear we have to enter new scheme.
My 3.5year old does
8-6 thur nursery-2prechool sessions from grant so 6hours term time only.she does 2sessions in preschool which are free as term time only no shortfall.
I pay the extra and the holidays as 14weeks not covered by grant and shes due to start school september 2014.
My 3rd child childs 2 in 2weeks time and due to delayed speech was thinking starting him bit earlier than originally thourght as bee good for him.
preschools 1 big room, nursery better to cater for younger ones as own 2s room, sleep facilities as he still naps.
I was planning on starting him thursday and trying to do freelance work on that day.
hubby gets 160taken pre tax and that saves us £40 a month so £480 a year not a huge sum.
If hubby was to change jobs and be forced on new scheme the only way i can go back when kids in school would be use childminder which new vouchers initially age 5 and current ones used for wrap around care they say eventuially be upto age 12 but they dont say when how does that help parents plan for the future?
I dont get any tax credits.
I just get child benefit.
I did think we would lose it as at tory conference when fisrt unveiled they say 42k was limit.
I also dident realise that each year the higher tax band changed so more and more people are being caught into paying 40%tax even husband thourght it was 40k its 35 lowering to 32k next year.
I fear that all these benefits for the wealthy and the welfare provision for the low paid mean the middle are sharing the burden more as the ones at top yes they paying but its small %of greater income if that makes sense.
where as we constant being tight with monthly budget, worrying about mot, and trying to work out ways to save when everythings going up and inflations not being controlled.
Some might say ajhh budgets are quite selfish everyone thinks its about them.
Its not about me as im on old scheme im angry for future people like me.
Im not hugely envious but do see some take advantage and cant cope without them im proud im raising my kids independently and somehow doubt if lived closer mum be much help she does my head in and reguarly rings me to say she misses her grandkids and im depriving her of time with them which im not as shes welcome to visit any time and openly says i see all the people up town with their grandkids and they mugs, I brought up my kids i have no intention of being doormat for my kids.
Mostly uses every excuse going. yet see my 80something neighbour picking up 1 from infants taking 2 to preschool and thinking ahh thats lovlely I enjoyed growing up in extended family maybe because my nan was the sane one.
As for the housing it wont help many 1st time buyers.
they still need to save 5%
he said subject to banks checks ie struct lending criteria and thiose with families be worse off as they do take into account childcare costs when considering affordability which somes huge where as a childless couple both working will stand a better chance as have less outgoings.
it might benefit wealthy families to buy holiday home in cornwall
wealthy families to buy their uni student some digs then rent out other rooms, buy to let or simply to move up the ladder as limits 600k buys something every nice and large in southwest.
The new builds shoe boxes be overpriced no real space they only seem to build executive homes here and benefit big business.
we have huge shortage of housing they wont build as that means house prices drop.
It should be 1st time buyers only.
Labour have no really financial plan other than to borrow more,They recently changed mind about 10p tax again"!
They ore intrested in protesting about bedroom tax than helping those in private rental sector.
I guess i may vote lib dem dont know.
I agree somethings need to change in uk but needs better ways to go about it.
Why are oaps excempt from bedroom tax when they biggest group of under occupiers.
why do they not their many benefits means tested as many have pensions, savings and property.
They want certain things but dont put provision in place.
Theres high unemployment and also underemployment.
Pushing people out to find non existant jobs.
cutting funding to charities that helped people.
ringfencing international aid and nhs.
I know its midterm blues but budget wa final straw its angered me.
Mam29 "I also dident realise that each year the higher tax band changed so more and more people are being caught into paying 40%tax even husband thourght it was 40k its 35 lowering to 32k next year."
No, it isn't! Didn't you read my last post back on about page 3 or 4? Higher rate tax starts at around £42K. That is when you are earning £32K over the £10K tax free allowance. Not at £32K total earnings. I've already explained it twice (three times now) but you seem to persist in wringing your hands over something which just isn't happening.
Why the heck does inland revenue says it does then?
surlys its an official source?
another link says its 32k next year.
I agree it is a very confusing table.
Look at this one: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/basics.htm#6. Follow the "How much income tax you pay" link and then read the notes below, particularly the one that says
Remember, the tax band applies to your income after your tax allowances and any reliefs have been taken into account - you're not taxed on all of your income.
The amounts shown in the table do not include the tax free allowance.
Thankyou thats very helpful as looks like its decreasing every year therefore dragging more people into higher rate 40%tax.
I guess in a way it still is just the amounts I said were incorrect as thourght it was taken as in from next year
I now get what you mean but this year will be
next year will be 32k
so its reduced by 2k therefore meaning more people paying higher rate or am I being a pleb?
Dont know why they say tax does not have to be taxing.
think he has deductions for travel as well as childcare vouchers.
Ok - the personal allowance is going up from £8000ish to £9400 ish. The 20% rate is falling from £35k to £32k.
So the point where higher rate tax kicks in is falling from £43k to just under £42k. But you will get an extra £1400 with no tax to pay which will covers the gap for those on the borderline.
Also - people always think the tax bands are 0%, 20% and 40%. But they don't allow for NI (which roughly reduces at the same point as higher rate tax kicks in.) So in fact it is 0%, 33%, 43% so nowhere near as big a jump as it first seems.
The other thing to remember is that if you are over the higher rate tax threshold then you only pay the higher rate tax on that which is over the line. Not the full amount.
People talk with horror about being caught in the higher rate tax trap as if something terrible will happen there. But I've been paying higher rate tax since 2004 and when you go first go over the line it really isn't that big a deal.* You start paying a slightly higher proportion of tax but it is only when your salary gets quite a bit higher that you notice a difference. And then you have more salary anyway so less of a problem. No-one puts you in the stocks and throws rotten tomatoes at you just because you pay HRT I promise!
* If you joined the childcare voucher scheme after April 2011 you do get less once HRT kicks in which isn't great (dh is affected by this as he was made redundant in March 2011 so had to rejoin the scheme once he had a new job) but it's just the way it is.
mam your posts hurt my head, I can't read them without having to go back over things a few times and make out what you are saying, you are totally confusing me.....to be honest you lost me when you said you voted tory...
FWIW I get embarrassed reading sahms listing everything they do all day. I stayed at home, more or less, when the kids were small and I've only ever worked around dh's shifts..now I work around the school day. I know lots of mums who have kids in school and they don't work, mainly because they don't need the money. But I've often heard them telling me what they do during the day and how exhausted they are and it makes me wince. I only work 10-3 so I'm a bit stuck in the middle, haven't got all day to myself but also am there before and after school every day. When you aren't working its easy to get caught up in the bitty things that happen all the time and make them out to be major events, I know as I've don't it myself.
I have always thought its easier to go out to work when the kids are small but easier to stay at home when they start school. More of us need to be honest about our decisions, the good and the bad. Nothing about being a mum is a walk in the park.
that was I've done it myself (and here's me slating mams grammar )
Ssd- I completely agree with you that parenting is tough.
One point- and this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just an observation. I've often seen on threads, SAHM commenting that they don't need approbation from a job to make them feel self worth. (this often comes up in the context of a WOHM saying she gains self esteem and fulfilment from her work.) However, one theme of the current threads doing the rounds is that SAHM feel they need exactly that. The word 'recognition' has come up frequently. They want recognition that parenting and organising a home is not always easy and is valued.
I think this is a really tricky area, because of course respect and appreciation should come from within your family. Just as the family (as well as the employer) should value any family member who is working and contributing to the family. I am still unclear though as to what other form of recognition it is that people are after. People cant be paid to stay at home!
I guess this highlights a wider issue, which isn't about money, but that generally in society, parenting is perhaps not recognised as the difficult role it is- or at least to do well. Any idiot can father or give birth to countless children, but raising well adjusted young people is another matter entirely.
Of course this isn't specifically a SAHM Issue though. If we want to show value and respect for parenting, then it applies to all parents who are doing their best at it. I am a WOHM and I gain recognition for my work role in the form of salary and professional respect, but I'm also raising children and running a home.
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.