AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?

(732 Posts)

So I know it's fairly old news, but the new government proposals to help working parents with childcare costs have been popping up on my BBC newsfeed this week.

Now there are plenty of things wrong with these new proposals, such as the "help" only being available for parents with under-5s to start with, and that students don't count as "employed" so if you're both/one of you are students and need childcare while you're at college you get no help at all. At least they're apparently going to count being a carer as "employed" so families where one parent stays home to care, they will get help with childcare.

However, what I don't understand is why these aren't the issues being highlighted, but instead, just people whining that SAHPs will lose out. Erm, please correct me if I'm missing some fundamental point here, but isn't that because SAHPs, by their very nature, don't need childcare!! That's why they stay at home - to look after their own children.

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

So to my mind, it's like complaining that you aren't entitled to JSA because you have a job, and saying that having JSA for those who need it is "dangling a carrot in front of people with jobs to tempt them into unemployment".


BrokenSunglasses Tue 06-Aug-13 14:49:17


You could also have a childless person claiming that they are discriminated against for not receiving child benefit. That's how ridiculous it is.

I agree with the proposal.

Famzilla Tue 06-Aug-13 14:51:41

YANBU. I don't get why SAHP's point is really. Seems like a bit of a foot stamping "it's not faaaair" tantrum to me.

Harrin Tue 06-Aug-13 14:57:37

YANBU at all

SpiceAddict Tue 06-Aug-13 15:01:09

Is it because the other working parent can currently can get £243 tax free vouchers (if their employer is in the scheme) but under this they will nothing at all?

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 15:01:12

YANBU at all. Typically it then gets conflated with child benefit which isn't the same issue at all. 'Tis ridiculous.

angelos02 Tue 06-Aug-13 15:01:48


I don't see the logic of their argument either.

I don't have children, shall I stamp my feet and demand child benefit?!

Crinkle77 Tue 06-Aug-13 15:01:49


ButThereAgain Tue 06-Aug-13 15:03:02

Completely agree. It's absurd that this gets any airtime or brainspace at all when the real problem is that the new childcare regime will disproportionately benefit better-off parents rather than the poorest. In a context of hideous cuts made elsewhere it is obscene for SAHP to be complaining about not getting benefits that just aren't relevant for them.

NoComet Tue 06-Aug-13 15:03:55

Everything in the tax and benefits system discriminates against SAHP.

Especially those married to higher rate tax payers, who would get taxed way less and get child benefit if they both worked for less.

if you choose to bring up your own children the government, what ever party they are hate you

I have long since run out of swear words suitable to express my feelings on this subject.

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 15:03:57

Is it because the other working parent can currently can get £243 tax free vouchers (if their employer is in the scheme) but under this they will nothing at all?

I imagine this could be part of it.

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 15:06:04


Just some other points though.

AFAIK The age limit enables the budget for this to cover more people during the expensive years rather than a smaller amount of people including those with school age children where childcare does get a bit cheaper.

Regarding students, I am one so we won't be eligible for this (don't currently get vouchers as DH is self-employed), however, I do have access to massively subsidised childcare through my university, which I don't think is unique to where I study.

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

This assumes that every SAHP is there because they want to be rather than because of economics. Childcare is so prohibitively expensive that it just doesn't make sense financially to work currently, especially if you have several children.

YANBU in wondering why it supposedly discriminates against SAHP. I can't understand that thinking at all. It surely is proposed precisely for such parents, to give them more choice over their lives.

ShadeofViolet Tue 06-Aug-13 15:07:58

I absolutely agree and dont understand what the issue is. I was convinced there was something I was missing.

Unless this is a ploy to get rid of the 15 hours free childcare for 3 year olds, then I would have an issue.

Well, no, AngelDelight, if someone is a SAHP because they can't afford childcare (a horrible situation that I've been in), then with this new scheme they will hopefully be more able to go out to work. The idea that this scheme is trying to push women into work when they don't want to, though, is just ridiculous.

mrslyman - I'm a full-time student but located off a university site so cannot get any help with childcare. Luckily DH gets vouchers ATM but under the new scheme we'd get no help at all, which would mean I'd have to give up my studies. Fortunately I'll have graduated by the time this comes into place but others won't be so lucky.

Now, I get that currently anyone can claim vouchers, but I'm sorry to say I don't agree with people doing so unless they actually need childcare to go out to work. The only exception I would make to this would be someone who isn't in paid work but who uses childcare to enable them to do other unpaid work like volunteering or caring etc. If SAHMs are whining because they can't use tax-payers' money to get their DC looked-after while they go to the gym, I'm likely to get a bit angry.

I think they are pitching working parents against SAHP to distract from the gaps in the policy for example that students won't be able to claim any vouchers through their partners, neither will people earning less than 350pcm or working less than 16hrs per week, although they might have a very real need for childcare for (often) low paid work. I agree SAHP generally don't need childcare, but they are excluding a lot of low income earners/ students in order to fund people on high joint incomes.

I didn't know that about the low hours or low pay, 3bdb. So, so many flaws in this new policy. As usual hmm.

ophelia275 Tue 06-Aug-13 15:52:51

YABU. You could ask the same thing about working parents. Why do couples who both work need help with childcare costs? If SAHP is a lifestyle choice so is going out to work and paying someone to look after your child rather than choosing to look after your children yourself. If you choose to go out to work and pay someone to look after your child, why should the government give you money because you have made that choice yet if you stay at home and look after your child you are apparently making a "lifestyle choice"?

flatmum Tue 06-Aug-13 15:54:08

I agree with you. I don't think you should be given a tax break to stay at home to look after your children because that doesn't cost 1000s of pounds a month to pay for like paying a nursery nanny or childminder does

ClassyAsALannister Tue 06-Aug-13 15:55:33

Agree with 3birthdaybunnies .

It's a political version of divide and conquer. And going by a lot of threads on here it's working.

Am also a FT student atm but as it's with Open Uni I'm a bit screwed. Considering they don't want so many people on benefits they're making it awfully hard to work your way out (unless you want to settle for a shittily paid job that barely makes it worth working at all, even if your're capable of working towards a much better one that would mean you need less help from the state)!

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 16:01:29

this is not actually a new scheme its just all companies are now offering it and its not really that great you buy upto £250 of chilcare vouchers a month and don't pay tax on it usual beauracratic arse about face way of saving a few quid but I agree I don't understand why if you don't work you would need to these vouchers in the first place!

ophelia - when both parents work, they need help with childcare costs because it's bloody expensive, and if everyone who currently works through getting help with costs suddenly didn't get help and had to quit, the economy would likely collapse.

I understand that childcare costs are high because childcare workers need to make a decent wage and we expect good standards of care. But there isn't a single developed country in this world where the government doesn't recognise the need to subsidise childcare in one way or another - either by running their own subsidised nurseries, offering tax breaks etc.

Not working really is a lifestyle choice and a recent one at that, though it's one I can understand people making if they're fortunate enough to be able to. Going out to work isn't. It's just what people have done since the dawn of time to enable civilisation and society to function.

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:05:31

Erm so we shouldn't try and make what are some of the highest childcare costs more affordable because some women prefer to stay at home with their children?

Also as there is also a scheme in place that helps with childcare costs I just don't buy into the argument that this is a policy aimed at opening up a divide between SAHM and WAHM/ WOHM.

I do agree with people on low incomes being excluded is flawed, but the article I read suggested that there was other help available for this. Do childcare tax credits still exist? Is that what they meant?

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 16:07:51

x2boys - I don't work & we use the vouchers as I'm a full time student. When I'm on a ward placement I work 12 hour shifts & my DC need childcare. Under this new scheme we wouldn't get the help as I'm not working although my DH is working full time.

x2boys - this isn't about the current voucher scheme, which is due to be abolished in 2015, I think? It's about the scheme which will replace it where you can clain £1200 a month back from the government for childcare if and only if both parents work.

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:08:25

Annie btw not everyone can claim now. You can't if you are self-employed and even if you are employed your employer may chose not to participate in which case you can't claim vouchers.

impecuniousmarmoset Tue 06-Aug-13 16:10:32

In an ideal world, you're right. But 'SAHP' is such a broad category. As you say, student parents are buggered by these proposals. The other people who are buggered are SAHPs who want to go back to work, because without any help with childcare, um, it's quite difficult to find work! Or people like me who are self-employed and just getting back in the swing of things, but still earning very little indeed (for which read next to nothing). Without help with childcare, it's not clear to me that I can fully get back into the world of work at all, because how can I start earning if I'm looking after 2 small children?

Fundamentally, these are proposals that assume a black and white world whereas the real world is full of shades of grey. Now there's a surprise from this sorry excuse for a government hmm

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 16:11:17

Also as there is also a scheme in place that helps with childcare costs I just don't buy into the argument that this is a policy aimed at opening up a divide between SAHM and WAHM/ WOHM.

I think, and I could be wrong as I'm not in this situation, that it's because of the changes to Child Benefit. If you earn £60k you have enough money & don't need Child Benefit, even if you have to support a partner & children on that one wage.

But, if you earn up to £300k between you, you need £100 a month help towards childcare.

I think this is why it's seen as causing a divide.

impecuniousmarmoset Tue 06-Aug-13 16:11:52

And while it's true that not everybody can claim childcare vouchers now, if they design a scheme that is specifically intended to help parents in work, but in practice excludes a large number of them, then it's fair to take issue with that. And how long before free hours for three-year-olds go the way of all the other help with childcare?

mrslyman - indeed, and this is at least one good thing about the new scheme - the self-employed and people whose employers aren't part of the vouchers scheme will finally be able to get help.

TheOldestCat Tue 06-Aug-13 16:12:56

"If you chose to bring up your own children..."?

Godwin's Law of the SAHP/WOHP discussion.

Mine are being brought up by wolves.

YANBU at all.

ButThereAgain Tue 06-Aug-13 16:14:27

ophelia, presumably because our low-wage economy makes it very hard for the people who need to work to be able to do so without financial help. In effect, the govt is giving a subsidy to employers to keep wages artificially low. They do that because of their perception of what benefits the economy, not to validate one lifestyle over another. Even in the heyday of pre-austerity politics it would be pretty absurd to think of the function of benefits or tax breaks being the validation of a lifestyle, which is what SAHP seem to be angling for (perhaps because of Tories' pre-election noise about using the tax system to validate, or indicate approval for, marriage).

bigkidsdidit Tue 06-Aug-13 16:15:46

It is utterly daft. The childless don't get child benefit either but that seems equivalent to me to the moaning published in the papers this weekend.

caramelwaffle Tue 06-Aug-13 16:16:17


mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:16:36

impecuniousmarmoset but if a SAHP wants to go back to work then when they do they can start claiming the vouchers so I'm not sure what you're point is.

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:16:42

your even.

CheeseOnTop Tue 06-Aug-13 16:17:39

Everything in the tax and benefits system discriminates against SAHP.

Especially those married to higher rate tax payers, who would get taxed way less and get child benefit if they both worked for less.

Starballs - would you prefer that both you and DP worked for £30k a year rather than just one of you working for £60k a year?? You'll save a bit in tax and get child benefit - and it will only cost about £1000 a month in childcare? hmm

thought not!!

MadeOfStarDust Tue 06-Aug-13 16:18:37

I thought the main argument should be why should people without kids be paying for childcare for people with kids, earning a joint salary of up to 300K, to go out to work.

I'm a SAHM and do get a bit peed off that having got married and had kids I am only valued if I work... So I am valued if I am paid to look after other peoples children , but not if I look after my own. Maybe these "tax breaks" to be announced for married couples in November will make me feel less "invisible" - maybe not....

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 16:18:48

Mine are being brought up by wolves

Mine are brought up by the cat - a bit like nana in Peter Pan. Seems to be working grin

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 16:19:00

well I,m sorry than I heard something on the news yesterday and it said that it was the same thing and the government were just spin doctoring was probably not listening properly my apologies

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:19:23

As an aside, I'd have thought that SAHP would be more in line with a conservative ideology and WOHP/ WAHP would the labour/ socialist option.

Although, I suspect as usual what it will come down to is a who will vote for us ideology.

calopene Tue 06-Aug-13 16:22:15

YANBU- why would someone who doesn't work need childcare ?

mrslyman Tue 06-Aug-13 16:24:42

I thought the main argument should be why should people without kids be paying for childcare for people with kids, earning a joint salary of up to 300K, to go out to work.

You can use this argument for all things tax related though. Why should my taxes be used to pay for healthcare for people who are ill when I'm very healthy? Why should I pay towards your child's education when my children aren't of school age?

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 16:26:45

hurricane wyn I,m presuming your a student nurse? as you mention wards how on earth can you afford childcare with the pittance those vouchers give you I only ask as I,m a nurse too and would never be able to afford the ridiculous prices of unsociable hours [child care] mind you my dh works very unsocial hours too so we try to work opposite each other does your dh /partner have a 9-5 job?

LieweHeksie Tue 06-Aug-13 16:27:08

YAB Very Reasonable.

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 16:30:36

Why should a SAHP's decision to stay be validated by the tax system into which they as individuals contribute nothing.

Society in many ways validates women who stay at home with their children - read the Daily Mail if you want examples. But the tax system doesn't and shouldn't.

YoniRanger Tue 06-Aug-13 16:39:58

Erm excuse the crap spelling!

ButThereAgain Tue 06-Aug-13 16:44:50

It sounds like the perspective of privilege to even think of saying that the tax and benefits system should take into account the need to "feel valued," at a time when the welfare state is failing to meet real and desperate basic needs of the poorest. Like a bad parody of middle-class entitlement.

Quite a lot of online noise seems to distort good feminist points about the invisibility and undervaluing of what is still largely treated as women's work into a claim for recognition via welfare. There are other and better ways of seeking recognition.

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 16:50:06

x2boys - I'm very lucky in that our nursery allows me to notify them in advance of what days I need the DC to attend & the 12 hour shifts generally only means 3 days a week for the 6 weeks I'm on placement. Again, I'm lucky in that a lovely childminder picks up the DC from the nursery & takes them to hers until DH picks up at 7.30 (she can't take them straight from school due to ratios or we'd do that).

Because it's only 3 days a week for 6 weeks at a time, DH gets £150 a month in vouchers and this averages out to cover what we need. We do come unstuck if I'm on placement during half term if DH has no leave left (especially when I was on my community placement & had 5 short days instead of 3 long days). When I'm on nights, I drop the DC with DH at the train station at 7 & then race to start at about 10 past 7. Ward managers are generally ok with this as I can still have a handover & it means we don't have to use any childcare at all.

But, I'm very lucky with such flexible childcare - very few people are in my position.

bearleftmonkeyright Tue 06-Aug-13 16:52:24

The fact that the low paid are excluded is the biggest bugbear for me. This is the single most important issue in getting back to work. Child tax credit is going, noone knows what help will be available under universal credit. It is disjointed and disappointing and could have been an exciting way forward. I am not impressed.

AliceLongbottom Tue 06-Aug-13 16:57:11

YANBU. This coming from a SAHM. I don't understand the moaning either. I'm a SAHM. I don't need any childcare costs, as I'm here! confused

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 16:58:52

When CB was removed from single income families earning 50k a year, we were told it was fair and that we have a huge deficit to pay down and those with the broadest shoulders, blah, blah, blah. Not forgetting that low income families should not be subsidising high income families, blah, blah,blah. He also announced that this would save 1b, despite the fact that it is to continue to be paid to families earning nearly double that of the single earner family. Now we hear that this new scheme will be of benefit to families earning up to 300k and will cost 1b. Basically, he has taken money away from one set of people and given it back to another set of people who earn loads. I would consider two parents working earning 300k between them is most certainly a lifestyle choice and if on 50k, I can afford to lose CB, then a family earning up to 300k a year can pay their own nursery fees. That is why single earner families are pissed off, not because we need a subsidy for child care.

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 17:06:14

I agree with Ihategeorge. The problem is that the news websites are not using that argument. They are saying that this policy discriminates against sahp when it doesn't. There are other policies that discriminate against SAHP but help with childcare costs doesn't affect them like disability allowance doesn't affect me.

NotYoMomma Tue 06-Aug-13 17:07:46

I seen this woman on the news saying it wasnt fair as it 'isn't a lifestyle choice'

surely it is?!

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:08:55

It's a lifestyle choice to have two high earning parents too.

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 17:09:37

I suppose it depends. Some chose to be a samp because childcare costs mean it will cost them to work.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:13:48

Also, people are being forced to pay for an extra room in their house when they have nowhere to downsize. Yet money is made available for families on huge incomes to maintain their lavish lifestyles. It's all so wrong.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 06-Aug-13 17:16:03

Its not about the childcare. A sahp doesn't need this. It is the general consensus that sahp is the bottom of the barrel and that it is only acceptable to be a 2 parent working family.
Supporting working parents does undermine the worthwhile job a sahp does.
All families should get the same support and it should be income related and means tested. If we all received money for childcare then we could decide what to do with the money.

YANBU. But I think the threshold is far too high at £300K and there should perhaps be tax breaks for SAHM such as transferring your tax allowance.

The whole thing makes my head explode.

TheCrackFox Tue 06-Aug-13 17:19:48

I think it is utterly farcical that it will help couples earning £300k but not help the low paid or someone working 15hrs a week.

I work but my children are too old for this to be any use to our family.

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 17:20:06

But a SAHP doesn't need child care in the same way as WOHP does. Why would the get the same?

HurricaneWyn Tue 06-Aug-13 17:21:42

But Little why should a SAHP lose their Child Benefit to finance Childcare for a couple earning £300k?

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 17:22:00

Also PotatoPrints what is the worthwhile job SAHP do that WOHP don't - both raise their children.

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 17:24:03

People have not lost child benefit to finance this. They are not an either or choice. The child benefit changes were announced over a year ago.

Conflating the two is misleading.

impecuniousmarmoset Tue 06-Aug-13 17:25:44

LittleBearPad - I say this as someone who works. What a SAHP does that a WOHP doesn't do is do the grinding work of looking after and entertaining small children between 9 and 6, 5 days a week, while the WOHP is at work! Isn't that kind of obvious?!

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 17:26:47


Jesus does it need pointing out again!

1 income families on 50k lose CB(even though 2 income families on over 100k keep it and have double the tax allowance).

The saving from from this was deemed necessary and those on 50k wealthy.

The saving from the above has now been put towards childcare for families on a lot more than 50k- as much as 300k.

Sahp are consistently being criticised and put down by this gov and yes discriminated against.They do nothing to help more families have one even for a short period of time.

Fine chuck away money on uber rich families on 300k but how about raising the ceiling for CB for families on one income the same.

Oh and many sahp want to go back to work and may need to retrain.They get no help re childcare in order to do this.

LittleBearPad they do all the childcare during the day - or are you saying that nursery workers/ child minder/ nanny doesn't do a worthwhile job?

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 17:27:53

The 300 k thing is what is causing the problem. People are rightly so imo, outraged that people on that kind of salary will get government help. BUT there are far more families where both parents work on quite a modest salary than there are earning lots of money. The proposals won't help us because by the time they come into play mine will be too old to benefit but help for childcare costs is a good thing imo. Whether this particular scheme is any good remains to be seen and whether it is actually better than the voucher scheme already in play is a matter for debate.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:29:42

Little, the point is that when they announced that single income families earning 50k a year were going to lose CB, it was because there is a huge deficit and those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most and it is not fair that low income families should have to subsidise the CB of higher income families. This child care policy flies in the face of all that rhetoric. I thought we didn't have 1b to spend for higher rate tax payers to get CB, based on what Osborne said. Now, it turns out that we have exactly that sum of money to spend on the child care of families earning 300k. My husband is therefore funding families on nearly 6 times our income their lifestyle choice to go out to work. However, I was told that my lifestyle choice to be a SAHM didn't warrant CB confused

LittleBearPad Tue 06-Aug-13 17:29:43

impecuniousmarmoset but many SAHP's choose to do that. Those who don't may be helped by this scheme to get jobs out of the home if they wish to as their child are will be somewhat cheaper.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:32:31

These people have to go in 2015 or I will completely lose the will to live angry

oldham70 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:35:11

I agree most sahp parents don't need this child care support. However, this govt does treat sahp like shit. As a sahp with a hrt tax paying partner we get no help. I have no incentive to work as childcare more than I could earn. My tax allowance is not transferable to dh yet I receive no child benefit becausse of his income.
However the real losers are part time workers and those on low incomes who need childcare but will not qualify. Yet those earning 100k qualify.
Another crap policy.

DigestivesAndPhiladelphia Tue 06-Aug-13 17:35:32

OP - I totally agree with you. I was discussing this with my mum earlier and when I said I didn't think the scheme discrimates against stay at home parents, she screeched at me: "You've turned into a Tory!" confused

I am a SAHM. When I see headlines saying that this is controversial because stay at home parents can't claim this, I am totally confused. Working parents need childcare so they they can work.

My 2 year old does go to to nursery 2 mornings a week so that I can focus on the younger ones, but I don't expect government assistance to pay for that - it's my choice. Working parents (two working or one single parent) don't have a choice, childcare is a necessity.

DigestivesAndPhiladelphia Tue 06-Aug-13 17:38:18

Also, I think that working parents whose earnings are below the threshold (on a low income) can still claim 70 or 80% of the childcare cost through the tax credits system.

oldham70 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:38:56

O and they say we can't possibly get rid of non means tested benefits for pensioners yet as usual working aged people are fair game. Think wfa v child benefit and bedroom tax.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:42:34

YANBU. If one parent isn't working, then they don't need childcare. The argument about really low earners is irrelevant because they already get a large proportion of childcare costs paid for

Having been a working mum back when there were no tax credits and no childcare subsidies, I know just what an expensive thing childcare is.. Often the biggest outgoing , bigger that mortgage or rent. I don't begrudge working families the help at all, even though I didn't benefit from it, so it's ludicrous that SAHP can feel justified in griping

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 17:45:17

<wonders if posters bother reading threads anymore>

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:46:44

For the last time, SAHPs don't want a child care subsidy. They want some fairness and continuity in government policy. If 300k a year is good enough to receive a childcare subsidy, then 300k should be good enough to receive CB. Equally, if 50k is good enough to lose CB, then 50k should be good enough not to get a childcare subsidy. We just want continuity and fairness, not that I expect that from this incompetent, out of touch, bunch of tossers.

Beastofburden Tue 06-Aug-13 17:47:38

I would agree with transferable personal allowances to support SAHP.

I don't agree that we should all have state funding for childcare and then decide that if we are SAHPs we can spend it on something else, as an earlier poster suggested. That's like spending CB on ballet lessons. A sole earner family on 50k with a SAHP has no childcare costs (except for student parents and people trying to get back to work, where we ought to have some flexibility). Two people earning 50k between them spend most of it on childcare.

But the 300k limit is a shocker. IMO it ought to be the same limit as the CB limit. Unless there is some interaction with benefits that I dont understand, this seems like a massive own goal.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:47:43

Yes, they do read the thread, They just don't necessarily agree with you!

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:48:16

Cross posted Butter grin. I've had enough now. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. Simon and Garfunkel had a point.

MonstersDontCry Tue 06-Aug-13 17:48:55


I say that as a SAHM.

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 17:49:10

You do know that they will try mean test any free childcare.

Being a SAHM is not a walk in the park and why should they not have some access to childcare. I work FT but am currently on mat leave and do not blame anyone for using the free childcare if they are a SAHM.

The new scheme isn't so great when you consider women are more likely to be made redundant than men.

There is pressure for nurseries to turn away parents who may not earn a great deal but do not claim benefits - to make way for more 2 year old places. This is going to make the cost of childcare more expensive.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:50:22

Taxation as an individual is a really important principle. If people are allowed to start transferring tax allowances then what's to stop working couples doing the same, to minimise the tax they'd pay?

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:51:15

Government subsidies always make things more expensive in any case. You watch, child care will miraculously increase by £1200 a year as soon as this policy comes in. Families won't save anything. Nurseries will do well from government hand outs though.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 17:51:20

Same old sahp bashers appear on every thread.

Thank goodness RL has a demographic more inline with reality.I don't know anybody who thinks this is fair.

Tbh I think this sort of thing is starting to bring those of us shat on together.Totally changed my stance recently on the bedroom tax and a few other blatantly unfair policies.

impecuniousmarmoset Tue 06-Aug-13 17:52:17

LittleBearPad but they won't! How can you get out to work if you get no help with childcare in order to jobhunt, or retrain, or start a business? Pretty bloody difficult for a lot of families living right on the edge as it is.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:53:12

Yes, I know, it doesn't take them long to make an appearance does it Butter? I agree with everything you say BTW.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 17:53:18

Re transferable tax allowance.

Over 50% of families aren't married(we're one of them) so married couples allowance would do buggar all to help 50% of sahp families(as the gov well knows).

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:54:19

The government will find out exactly who thinks what in 2015. I'm not so sure I'll be in the minority then.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 17:55:39

Agree Butter, £150 - whoopee bloody doo!! To think they think that £150 is an acceptable tradeoff for 2.5k CB. What planet are they on???

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 17:58:33

Oh fgs it's now SAHP bashing to hold a different opinion?!
If that's genuinely what people think, maybe they need to look at themselves to see why they consider being a SAHP 'the bottom of the heap'

A SAHP who actually wants to work but can't afford to will be HELPED by this. A SAHP who doesn't want to work is not affected by it. It's clearly sour grapes that someone else is getting something which you're not entitled to but don't need anyway. And yes, I am sure there are many families with a SAHP who live on tight budgets but for heavens sake, you're always telling us you're happy to make the sacrifices so you can 'raise your own children ' and not 'hand them over to strangers' etc etc so presumably you're happy with your choice. If you're so envious of other people getting a bit of help with childcare you could always get a job so you're not missing out

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 18:00:50

Don't think you are at the moment.

This kind of blatant fairness causes unease as people know they could be next and if fairness is thrown out the window who knows what other favours the Tories will bring in for their rich friends come next election t the expense of more ordinary folk.

They've sooo had their day.

Can't wait until we no longer have to look at shiny Dave,smug George or listen to patronising,lying Nick.

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 18:01:04

ihategeorgeosborne - so true. Private nurseries are rubbing their hands with glee - it is going to get very expensive to send a child to nursery.

I really really really hate George - what a plonker!

Beastofburden Tue 06-Aug-13 18:01:19

Buttercat, agree- I think they would have to allow transfers of personal allowances between more than just married people. There are lots of ways to make sure people nominate their partner and not some random person, there is no need to make it about marriage.

I HATE Tory policy on tax breaks specifically for marriage. Stable couples, yes. Marriage, not so much. (Am married myself, 23 years, btw) .

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:02:17

I think I've had numerous conversations with you about this over the year or so janey. I'm tired of it now. I'm off

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 18:03:33

Fine by me George. A discussion forum is for discussion. If you can't handle people with a different opinion then don't feel obliged to join in.

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 18:08:45

I just wonder if the conservatives have posters that come on mn to promote their unfair and bizarre policies.

PeriodMath Tue 06-Aug-13 18:09:11

I'd far rather they cut the top rate of tax than constantly looking for ways to give our taxes away.

It will appeal to Tory-leaning voters though and why shouldn't a Tory govt do that? Those of you bitching about them are never going to vote for them and they know that. Exactly the same way Labour pushed immigration and benefits - it gets them votes.

I don't think it discriminates against SAHPs at all. And I am one. I don't need childcare. Same way I don't get twisted out of shape at the thought of losing child benefit. I don't need it - most people don't.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 18:09:37

And for the record I've never 'bashed' SAHP- I have nothing but admiration for families where one parent supports the other financially so that they can be home full time if they feel that's right for their family (and can accept that other people do it differently)
But I'm getting pretty tired of hearing them complaining about feeling downtrodden and unappreciated. It's not the WOHP who are making you feel like this.
At the end of the day, to be able to afford a parent at home by choice (ie not because of childcare costs being prohibitive) is a privilege, it's not something that can automatically be assumed and it really doesn't come across well to be griping about families who have the pressure and expense of both working as well as raising their children

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 18:12:04

Erm I have and would have voted Tory,same re my parents,inlaws,sisters,friends.......Not a chance now.

HTP traditionally vote Tory.Silly,silly Dave shafting your own voters.

PeriodMath Tue 06-Aug-13 18:13:23

Oh, and whoever says that with their salary of 50k they are funding the lifestyle choices of a family on 300k - get a bloody grip. That family is chucking about 150k in the tax pot every year - funding plenty of people's lifestyles choices.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:15:48

That's where you're wrong Period. I did USED to vote conservative. I didn't in 2010, because I couldn't stand David Cameron (and with good reason). Bloody glad I didn't now too. I've certainly learnt my lesson with tories. My dh feels the same, so that is two permanent ex-conservative voters.

danaerysstormborn Tue 06-Aug-13 18:16:28

I am also mystified as to why it is a ' slap in the face for SAHP's! ' They don't work, therefore pay n tax, therefore don't get a tax break! They also don't need childcare vouchers, or tax free childcare! Acept the point re: students etc, but not the ones re: higher rate taxpayers losing their child benefit and the vouchers. If you are married to someone on over £65,000 you probably are making a lifestyle choice. You can afford childcare if you went out to work, but choose not to. That's fine. I wish it was a choice I could make, but I can't. Also, how many couples both work in jobs that pay £150,000 each, plus have children? I agree the limit is far too high, but the vast majority of families affected, I suspect will be families like mine, with one person on a fairly average wage and one working part time, who actually do need to work to pay the bills and could do with a tax break. It does seem to me that some SAHP's make snide comments about how they up their own children but then want the taxpayer to fund childcare for them- why? If it is so terrible that you can't go back to work and put your kids in it do you want childcare vouchers?

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:17:37

So, why then period do people say that lower earners are funding CB for HRT payers? That line seems to get trotted out constantly.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:19:18

Haven't noticed any such snide comments on here dana

MortifiedAdams Tue 06-Aug-13 18:24:07

Childcare is very expensive. DH earns 14k and I earn 18k. We couldnt live on 18k so we need the extra cash coming in purely to meet our low living costs. We arrange our shifts so that we need as minimal childcare as possible but due to the high costs of such childcare we are forced to pay, we have no money spare at the end of the month. It isnt the fault of working parents that the cost of childcare is so high - the Government have the jurisdiction to make it more affordable and this is one way of doing it.

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 18:24:08

Maybe they should make this a universal thing to stop the Daily Mail complaining, I doubt many SAHP's will spend £6k a year on childcare just so that they can get their £1200 from the gov anyway.

Like it or not, WOHP's generates an income for the government, not only do I pay tax on my earnings, I also help generate income for the company I work for which is far more than I earn. This boosts the economy and will help us out of the recession.

Don't get me wrong, I value what SAHP's do highly, however they are not directly contributing to the financial well being of the country. And this is why they need to incentivise working.

Helping parents with childcare is a net gain.

And bringing up the families on £300k in this discussion is crazy, I doubt here are many families in this country where both parents earn £150k!

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 18:24:36

Can I ask all the SAHP's how they manage medical and other appointments if they have 2 children.

I presume you must get help elsewhere such as partner or family?

As someone on mat leave I have had to arrange and pay for cc to ensure I could go to appointments.

Thymeout Tue 06-Aug-13 18:27:10

Some SAHM can't afford to work because of childcare costs. Some WOHM can't afford NOT to work because they need two incomes. Neither are making 'lifestyle choices'.

But some WOHM could stay at home, if they were prepared to lower their standard of living. They are making a choice. And some SAHM are making a considerable financial sacrifice in opting to look after their children themselves in the early years. They are losing the mother's salary now and perhaps diminishing her prospects of earning a higher salary later. They don't need money for childcare, just to provide a decent standard of living.

The govt are effectively taking sides in the SAHM/WOHM debate by choosing to distribute limited resources to one group instead of the other.

I think the jury's still out on whether it's a good thing for babies and young children to spend long hours in a nursery from an early age. But this decision is about the economy, not what is best for the next generation.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 18:27:49

Snide comments,have you actually read the thread?

If you had you'd also see why many think it's unfair.

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 18:28:03

Don't worry that last post is a hijack - but this govt is utter bs.

By cutting ccv and restricting cc to under 5's then who the hell is going to take a career backstep when they stuff up work because of the school holidays - yep that's right women or make it work by paying for more childcare.

I mean most parents who work FT still need wrap around cc.

This govt really really really sucks!

danaerysstormborn Tue 06-Aug-13 18:28:10

That woman from Mothers at home matters or whatever they are called is always saying it, and lots of threads arguments about it on MN always have people saying it. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive because I do work, and DO bring up my own children! Part of that involves me going out to work, so that we can pay to put a roof over their head and feed the buggers! I resent being made to feel as if I am failing my children by doing this.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:29:20

mot, I have 3 dc and I take them to every apoointment. My dh works away (which is why I'm a SAHM). My mother is dead, my dad is ill and Dh's parents live at the other end of the country. It's a 10 hour drive away in fact. I'm totally on my own, no support what so ever. It's why I'm a SAHM. I took my 2 year old boy to a smear test at the doctors once!!

Those who are saying that SAHMs do a hard job and need a break - well, I get that, but children from 3-school-age still get their 15 hours free childcare, and after that their DC are at school 6 hours a day.

I also understand why it's galling that the threshold for this benefit is £150k, and up to £300k with both parents working. I was deliberately not paying attention to that n case it made me too stabby! But I can certainly agree that the threshold should be lower. And based on joint income. As should child benefit. FFS, they calculate all other tax credits on joint income!

Yes but danery you must make sure that you work more than an average of 16hrs a week across the year for the part time person to qualify, whereas say a consultant working 2 days a week earning 60K would qualify. Anyone working less than 16hrs wont - not always due to choice - eg zero hours contracts etc

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 18:30:37

Solve err if 50k is deemed wealthy enough to lose CB,sorry but families on a joint income of 100k shouldn't be getting help re childcare,let alone those on 300k.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:34:23

The thing is butter, I've been round the block on this one so many times. You won't get anywhere. It is unfair, whatever anyone says, and I don't mean about SAHPs not having childcare, I mean the different thresholds for this and CB and the joint vs. single income thing. The only thing we can do is vote the buggers out.

MadeOfStarDust Tue 06-Aug-13 18:37:06

Don't get me wrong, I value what SAHP's do highly, however they are not directly contributing to the financial well being of the country. And this is why they need to incentivise working.

solve - I dispute this - My hubby would not have risen to the pay band he is in and be paying higher rate tax without someone taking on all the "stuff" at home - childcare/house/garden/finances/etc etc etc... His pay has more than doubled since I gave up "work" - the work that some people are paid to do doesn't seem to count as "work" when you do it for nowt....

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:39:38

Agree StarDust, my dh would never be earning what he does if I wasn't here doing all the childcare. He is often away from home and when he is here, he's gone by 6am and not home until gone 8pm. He couldn't pay all the tax he pays without me doing ALL the other jobs.

racmun Tue 06-Aug-13 18:40:03

I'm a SAHM who dropped a good salary to look after ds. We made a lifestyle choice. Many families where both parents work also do so out of lifestyle choice eg want 2 holidays a year, private schooling, big house.

I don't really get why the childcare scheme is a slap in the face for SAHP but the rest of the system is. To have one parent stay at home the other, especially in the south East needs to earn a lot.

Over £100k you lose your personal tax allowance - because I don't work so we lose 2 personal allowances.

The child benefit has been withdrawn and whilst we don't 'need' it it does annoy me that for cb purposes we are looked at as a couple but for tax purposes we are individuals and I can't transfer my tax allowance to dh.

I don't want benefits for being a SAHM but certainly don't want to be unfairly penalised for making that lifestyle choice.

RobotHamster Tue 06-Aug-13 18:42:11

Will people with a combined income of £300k really be bothered about claiming this? And even if they do, the amount of tax they pay must be astronomical!

Am I right in thinking that the cut off for this is a certain tax band, to make it easier to administer - rather than needing to be means tested? The alternative would be to have it at the HRT level which would be too low.

I'm sticking with the old system as long as I can though- I wouldn't actually be eligible under the new system as I don't do 16 hours. That's far more ridiculous imo.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:43:22

Anyway, if they want to get all these SAHMs out to work, where are all these jobs. I thought there were millions unemployed. I'm not sure it's ethical giving subsidies to high earning dual income families when there are many families desperate for one job, who won't get any such subsidy.

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 18:50:31

George ad StarDust: if you've lost your CB it means that your DH earns more than me and my DH's joint income but out of our income we have to pay £14k in childcare per year. We do this to be able to feed our kids and put a roof over their heads.

We do not get tax credits. Do you really think its unfair that we get £1200 a year for childcare, bringing it down to £12.8k, because you lost your CB?

Surely you can see that you're the winners here?

An most people taking up this benefit will be people in my situation, there's not that many people on £300k out there that will take benefit from this.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 18:52:32

For all those who say their husband has only been able to rise to the heights he has in his career because Of the sacrifice made by having a SAH wife- I'm interested in this:
Exactly what are the dizzy heights to which your husband has risen? Is he in the really high earning league? Are we talking £100k upwards? Because frankly, it comes across as ridiculous to be complaining if he is.
Or is he (as is more likely) in the HR tax bracket but earning more of a 45-70k salary? Because if that's the case, there are hundreds of couples in that bracket who both work.
And this isnt a criticism of SAHP because if that's what you believe is best for your family, that's fine. But there are other couples out there who both do what your husband is doing and without family support too. Just among my circle I can think of several couples where both have senior positions, often needing to work late, travel etc -and often the childcare can be even more expensive in such situations because you need really flexible arrangment such as a nanny

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:54:13

I think people like you solve should definitely get help with childcare. I just don't think that rich dual income families should, when everyone else gets told there is no money left and by that, I mean people who really don't have a pot to piss in, but who won't qualify for this either.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 18:57:11

janey, we are in the latter category. If most of the couples you are referring to are also in this category, then might I suggest that one of them clearly doesn't NEED to work either. Therefore it is a life style choice, in the same way as being a SAHP.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 18:57:14

Solve have you read the thread?

I don't have a problem with you getting it but I do have a problem with families on 50k losing CB,being deemed wealthy when those on 100k and above not only keep CB but get childcare help too.

Turniptwirl Tue 06-Aug-13 18:58:02


MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:00:24

Yep mine is in 45 - 70 k and yes he wouldn't be able to have got where he is without me giving up work for a while and our children would have suffered.

You don't need to earn over 100k to do a demanding jobhmm and we know what is best for our family thanks.hmm

bearleftmonkeyright Tue 06-Aug-13 19:03:49

This policy pitches sahm again working mums, and also those who are very reliant on child tax credits or "in work benefits" as they seem now to be known. It is not a coherent policy. As another poster pointed out if you are offered a few weeks on a zero hour contract you are still stuffed. It is only useful to people on a certain income who are not under employed or on low pay. The sahm/wohm mum is a red herring. I still think there should be help for working parents but it ignores a whole section of parents who could really use that help. By keeping them separate, it keeps you reliant on universal credit/tax credit. You can't book a child into nursery if you have no immediate way of payinf the fees because you do not have a firm contract. That does make me bloody angry. It just feels like there is no hope. I say this as a sahm who would like to return to work. Childcare is very patchy for school age children round here.

Loopytiles Tue 06-Aug-13 19:04:14

Doesn't it make sense for the Government to incentivise both partners to work, dor example to increase skills and the number of people able to work, and improve equality, since it is normally women who SAH. Am thinking of scandinavia.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:09:29

Sorry but must couples do end up both working.Most sahp do it by choice for the good of their family(we're not brainless) for a period of time.

It's not 1950 and having 2 wp the entire time during a child's life doesn't suit all kids or all families.

Oh and Scandinavia isn't all it's cracked up to be,concerns are being raised re the impact of long term childcare there.Have friends recently returned who certainly didn't think it was all that.Cost of living hellish so many have no choice anyway.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 19:12:43

Yes George- they may well be able to choose whether to work or not. But my point is that by making this lifestyle choice, they are contributing to the economy which is what the govt is interested in (particularly as we are trying to come out of a deep recession)

Ultimately the other lifestyle choice (ie if such a family decided to have one parent at home) is not contributing to the govt in the same way. They may be doing a marvellous job of being a SAHP but the govt doesn't need them to be doing that. That's the bottom line. It may not be what people want to hear, but it's a simple case of economics.

As long as there are enough well adjusted, capable children being raised who will pay taxes in the future- that's what the govt is interested in. And tbh, if there were clear irrefutable evidence that children as a whole were more likely to be clever, successful and emotionally low maintenance by having a SAHP then actually I believe the govt would be promoting SAHP. There would be no financial benefit to the govt to have to take on the problems of generations of dysfunctional children who become dysfunctional adults. But as there is no such evidence, then frankly the govt are interested in people contributing directly

Like I keep saying, this isn't a criticism of SAHP. The govt wants good parenting, because ultimately that means well adjusted future adults. But a good parent could be a SAHP or a WOHP.

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 19:13:59

Janey now what you are not getting is it is just that most economic systems don't want to value the work that women do.

unpaid work

Please educate yourself about work and what it means.

"They don't count women's work but they count on women's work."&#8232;

"Having accepted the notion of marriage as her meal ticket, a women's domestic labour clearly reflected its economic imperative. The wife's primary responsibility was to ensure her husband was able to work in order to earn the wages for her own, as well as his, survival."&#8232;&#8232;Mary Kinnear&#8232;

"Society views domestic labour as women's responsibility and assumes that it is a donation they should make to the economy."&#8232;&#8232;Tanya Schechter

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 19:15:18

The cost of living in Scandinavia is not hellish as incomes are higher.

When we lived there we had far more disposable income than we do now in the UK. This was partly due to higher incomes, and partly due to lower outgoings such as rent and childcare.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:18:10

Yes that clearly is the gov's choice- stuff the happiness and wellbeing of families who want a sahp(having 2 wp with no break is shit for a lot of families)- tax breaks for millionaires,universal benefits for rich pensioners and childcare for the rich,are their priority.

Doesn't make it right.

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 19:21:14

Ok, I think that this is turning into a 'the rich vs the poor' discussion.

SAHP's think that if two parents are working they must have loads of money and don't need any help.

WOHM's think that if you can afford to have a person stay at home then you're comfortable enough to not need any help.

Mr buttercup in your opinion your children would have suffered if you had worked. And tbh you husband would probably have risen to whatever be dizzy heights of middle management he now inhabits - I rose there and so has my DH.
I'm bringing up my kids thanks - and holding gown a job as well. I've been a SAHM as well. Sorry to d

bearleftmonkeyright Tue 06-Aug-13 19:24:59

This phrase "lifestyle choice" really pisses me off. You make decisions, they are not always "choices". And sometimes these decisions are not straightforward, whatever way you do things.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:25:18

Errr he wouldn't have,you don't know our circumstances.

And woopy do to you.I'll go back to work too,currently looking soooooooo.........

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:25:25

Arghhhh this makes me so angry! Firstly - not all working parents are 'contributing to the economy' - most people are not net contributors. So saying SAHP shouldn't get help because they don't contribute is ludicrous. Secondly - being a SAHP is not always a lifestyle choice! It would cost me c. £400 a month to go to work, unfortunately we don't have that kind of money lying around spare. Even with the new proposals if we qualified for childcare help we would still be worse off with me working. And yes we lost CB and no we are not in any way well off!

Bother meant to say sorry to mr B to single you out but this shouldn't be about SAHM vs wohm it should be about putting support where it is needed. Which is what tax should be for...
So I think the op is NBU.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 19:26:30

I don't think it's saying stuff the well being of families who want a SAHP- the govt is interested in running a country which is economically viable- not the shambles we've got ourselves into . And tbh if every family suddenly decided they wanted one parent to not work because they were happier that way, then you'd certainly see an overnight deterioration in plenty of services.

Ultimately if you have a SAHP because you believe it's right- and not because you can't afford to go to work, then by definition, you can afford that choice. You may not have every luxury you'd like, but you can afford to live on one wage. And as you believe in having a parent at home then presumably you're happy to make the sacrifices of luxury homes , holidays and handbags anyway

(Sorry that last point is slightly sarcastic but it's what's usually wheeled out as the reason why mums work!!)

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 19:29:37

Most working parents are not net contributors? Are you kidding me?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:29:42

janey68 please read my post - some people cannot afford to go to work!

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:30:36

And my children would have suffered.Kids differ as do parents and circumstances.

We had 3 in 15 months(twins). My dp is in IT with tough release dates ie he has to go in at all hours and do weekends,long hours,commuting 1 hour and 1/2 each way and he was studying. I was a teacher which involves massive hours in the evening and during the weekends.

My dc got very little quality 1 to 1 time as it was.

They needed me,I needed them.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:31:46

No I'm not kidding - you have to be in the top 40% of earners (roughly speaking) before you put in more than you 'get out' (in benefits and services).

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:32:19

You Janey and governments don't dictate what is good or the best for families,we do.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 19:32:28

Theremustbe- for parents in that situation, this makes childcare more affordable!

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 19:36:45

ThereMustBeAmoter, have you got a link to this information?

motownmover Tue 06-Aug-13 19:37:23

Now surely you realise that you don't have to be in the top 40% of earners to put in more than you "get out" what bullshit.

In this accounting system women are 'non-producers' and as such they cannot expect to gain from the distribution of benefits that flow from production.

So there goes issues such as nuclear warfare, environmental conservation, and poverty. All are therefore excluded from value in traditional ways of measuring economics.

Men still hold 80% of the most powerful positions (see the UN gender equality report).

Pilgit Tue 06-Aug-13 19:40:51

Not read the whole thread so appologis if this point has been made butthe reason for it applying to up to 150k threshold is that this is a tax bracket. They have a choice - implement complicated means testing to make it apply only to a reasonable salary (what this is is debatable) or align with a tax bracket. If they means test it would cost enormous amounts to implement. Align with a tax bracket and job done, much lower implementation cost. Of course you get some high income households benefiting as a result but so do all of the families in that hinter land just above the 50k band but not earning anywhere near 150k. I was also really confused about why this is meant to discriminate against sahp - they don't need help with childcare. Agree that this is really just to subsidise employers so they don't have to pay wages to fully meet costs of working.

x2boys Tue 06-Aug-13 19:41:04

£ 1200 is really not a lot to incenticise somebody to go out to work chtrist only knows what it would cost for childcare /month for my 6yr old and 3 yr old we both work and get bugger all help towards childcare we could use the voucher scheme but that would just be a drop in the ocean I,m a staff nurse dh works in a warehouse so I do to 12hr shifts /week and either two earlies [8hrs ] when dh is on lates or two ;lates when dh is on earlies[8hrs] my two long days are on dh ,s days off this is my aim anyway when shifts overlap either my dad steps in or I have to use time owing/flexitime and we muddle along no government has any idea if they think £100 /month is either going to be of any real use or ornament bitch and moan about it as much as you want but I cant really see it helping the vast majority of middle earners who miss out on the child care taxcredit element thing [not that I think I should get it ] I just think the whole thing is a pointless exercise!

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 19:41:50

Actually I'm as cynical as the next person about the govt

Like I said, I believe if there was evidence that having working parents made children less likely to do well at school, less likely to go on to have good jobs, and more likely to suffer from mental illness or turn to crime, then I think the govt would be chasing mothers straight back into the home!

The thing is , because there is no such evidence, and they know that good parents are good parents, whether working or at home, then they have a vested interest in supporting people who are contributing directly to the economy

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:42:22

Here's a link - centre for policy studies research from last year:

Thymeout Tue 06-Aug-13 19:42:50

Janey - govts don't do long-term thinking. That's why problems such as pensions, social care for the elderly, airports, etc get kicked into the long grass. Their focus is the next election.

They have no idea of the long-term effects of putting babies and toddlers into nurseries for 5 days a week. It's too recent a phenomenon for anyone to know for sure. Even in 70's/80's it was relatively rare. Has only been gathering momentum since the rise in housing costs.

MadeOfStarDust Tue 06-Aug-13 19:43:09

here is where the net contributor averages seem to come from....

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics....." springs to mind....

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:43:10
MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 19:43:50

Pilg well then raise the capping of CB to 150k then.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Tue 06-Aug-13 19:45:23

Don't get me wrong, I know that stats etc can be made to say what you want them to say! I wasn't trying to make a debate about whether working people are net contributors or not.... What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of people saying that SAHP are 'not contributing' - I was just trying to say, look, it's not that black and white - a family with one earner may well be contributing more than two working parents. That's all!

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 19:50:42

Thymeout- many of my work colleagues who are older than me have adult children. These children did go to childminders and nurseries- and actually for far longer than nowadays because maternity leave was much shorter. Their children have done well at school, university and are happily settled in careers and relationships. As are the adult children of friends of mine who were SAHM. So lets dispense with the scare mongering.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 19:52:29

According to this website, our family are net contributors, even with a SAHM and 3 dc.

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 19:55:32

Is it fair that people have lost their child benefit in the way they have? No it isn't. Is it fair that the government are going to give help to people who are earning more than the 50k child benefit cut off? No. Has the government done anything to help sahp's. No. Does the government think negatively of sahp's? probably. Does the government giving help towards the cost of childcare directly put sahp's against wohp's? No.

candycoatedwaterdrops Tue 06-Aug-13 19:58:53

I think there are some valid points on both sides. There do seem to be a few who are throwing their toys out of their pram over losing 'their' child benefit which is skewing their perspective.

charleyturtle Tue 06-Aug-13 20:05:07

Ophelia275- You seem to be labouring under the assumption that if both parents work they must earn enough money for childcare.

my Dp and I both work. For us it is absolutely not a choice. If I don't work we can't afford to pay our bills. Nobody could accuse us of living a lavish lifestyle, we scrape by every month with no money for luxuries like new clothes for us or a night out, if our food bill comes in only £5 above budget then that means a bill wont get paid. luckily we don't have to pay for childcare as we managed to arrange our shifts so that one of us is always at home (he works late shifts most of the week so I work very early and we do long shifts on each others days off)

It is not always a choice for both parents to work, if my dp earned enough that I might not have to go to work then I would get to make a choice weather or not to stay at home. personally I would probably choose to stay at home with dd and not bitch and moan that I don't get help with childcare when I don't need it.

MadeOfStarDust Tue 06-Aug-13 20:07:19

ihategeorge.... we are net contributors on that site also - with a SAHM and 2 kids.

Thymeout Tue 06-Aug-13 20:08:21

Janey - I am not 'scaremongering'. Merely stating the obvious.

i don't want to derail the thread by opening up this aspect of the debate but couldn't let your assertion of 'no evidence' and govts would not do it if there were pass unchallenged.

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 20:11:02

Well show us the evidence then.

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 20:13:25

We are also net contributors but wouldn't have been if one of us didn't work, which is why help with childcare is needed.

You two are obviously very fortunate to afford to stay at home, I don't understand why you are so against making it fractionally easier to help other people become net contributors too?

And please do not bring up the families earning £200-£300k again, most families are not on that kind of money and those who are probably wont even bother to claim this.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:14:54

I'm a working mum. I work full time and I'm on £23k before deductions. When I was expecting my son 3 1/2 years ago my husband and I sat down and calculated how much it was going to cost in child care for us both to continue working. It was going to cost more than he earned (he was in a low paid job) so we decided he would sop work to stay at home with our son instead. It made no sense for him to be working purely to pay for hold care costs.

We tightened our belts accordingly and it worked well for us for quite a while. But in the last year living costs have gone up considerably and I have not had a pay rise in 5 years with none in sight. We tightened our belts further until tere was nothing left to tighten.

We discussed my husband trying to find a job. But here's the rub - you have to pay for childcare in advance. We don't have that sort of money lying around. Our son uses his 15 hours a week free, but the days and hours he goes are fixed, we have to give a terms notice if we want to change. There are no jobs for 15 hours a week that we could fit his childcare around (even changing the days/hours). He can't apply for full time work because we can't afford the upfront cost to put our son in childcare full time to enable him to take up the job.

It was te right decision for us 3/4 years ago. Now it's not, but we are trapped. This proposal won't help us.

To get the job you need the childcare in place.
To get the childcare in place you need the income/this funding from the job.

It's a catch 22.

bearleftmonkeyright Tue 06-Aug-13 20:21:45

Rinoachicjen, I am in exactly the same position as your husband and we have a similar income. You have summed up this dilemma well. It is a trap. It will help parents that are currently working who have secure employment, it won't help parents back into work which is ridiculous.

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 20:23:30

Riona, I'm sorry to hear about the situation your in.

If your DH gets a job, do you think you can request flexible working (15 hours) for a couple of months until you can pay for childcare?

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 20:23:38

I'm a SAHM and I think the policy stinks, although my DC are too old for us to need childcare anyway.

People who earn £300k do not need money towards childcare. My DH earns just over a tenth of that a year and we manage fine, we receive nothing from the Government other than CB. If people who have a single income of £50k are too well off to need their CB, then a family with an income of £300k, oh how I wish, should not receive any help towards childcare IMO, especially when those on the very lowest salaries and working the lowest amount of hours, as well as student parents won't qualify.

I think SAHP's are valuable to society and that value should be recognised. Why can't the working person in the household have a tax break to ease the load on their budget? And what if tomorrow all the SAHP'S decide to go back to work? Where are all the jobs going to come from and the nursery places?

This is just another way of Tory Dave trying to buy votes!

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 20:27:54

They don't call you littlemisswise for nothing grin. You've got it in a nutshell and very well put too I might add.

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 20:31:40

Thank you! I hate GO too!grin

Dackyduddles Tue 06-Aug-13 20:33:06

From what I understood, a person had to work 5 days ft? Or can a sahp return part time/ flexi etc and be eligible?

Where does one find out?

Also what happens if sahp cares for other members of family but might not be eligible for help to caring? I know several who assist wider family by putting dc in nursery et a few hrs a week to do so.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:34:11

Solve problem - I think we'd have to be VERY lucky to find that sort of employer. If it were me looking then maybe, as I have qualifications and skills et and do a particular job, so if they felt I was the right candidate they'd hopefully be flexible on starting dates etc.

But my husband is 15 years older than me, has no qualifications or 'skills', he has generally worked as a driver or in retail. Candidates for those positions are ten a penny. If you can't start when they want for the hours they want they just move down to the next person on the list.

Like bearleft said, it's a trap.

Plus I am now 20 weeks pregnant with a totally unplanned and unexpected pregnancy. So by Christmas he will be caring for 2 children.

I honestly can't see him being able to find work until both are at school, but by then he'll be 50 and probably viewed as 'too old'.

Dackyduddles Tue 06-Aug-13 20:34:17

Little miss well put

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:36:46

Oh, and we have no family to help. His mum is elderly and would not be able to cope with providing childcare for more than a couple of hours, and my parents live New Zealand!

Dackyduddles Tue 06-Aug-13 20:37:13

Rino I had that arguements in jsa apps. The staff had no idea how childcare worked. They were baffled. I was quite surprised. Would've thought that chicken/egg scenario was flipping obvious.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:40:01

Exactly dacky, they seem to think nurseries are happy to provide childcare for free for the first month/term while you wait for your first paycheck.

Nope! It doesn't work like that!

After all, no one works for free right?
Except SAHP of course...

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 20:41:44

Rinoa, well that is really shit. The gov should definitely do something about that!

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 20:43:52

Rinoa, I need to add that I was in that situation too when I went back to work. I was however very lucky to did a childminder who invoiced us at the end of the month so I had my first pay heck before the first payment was due.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:47:34

I'd happily pay back a govt 'back to work loan' or whatever if something existed, you know, the first month/terms fees as a loan so my husband could start a job, then pay back once he's earning.

Now that WOULD be helpful.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 20:54:16

WOHP plus SAHP = 1 set of taxes paid plus ( hopefully) children well brought up and one contribution to society via job role.

WOHP plus WOHP = 2 sets of taxes paid + childcarer employed( if needed)+ children well brought up(hopefully) plus 2 contributions to society via job role.

SAHP always go on about how much they contribute to society but forget that most WOHP do the same andpay 2 lots of tax and employ childcare and contribute twice with their job role.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 20:55:25

WOHP x 2 no childcare here btw

HappyMummyOfOne Tue 06-Aug-13 20:55:27

YANBU OP. I dont see why SAHPs are moaning either, tax credits didnt pay for childcare where all the adults in the household didnt work so no different. Students were not paid by tax credits either for childcare unless working. They get support from the college etc if they qualify.

The main benefit to this scheme is that its just a tax saving so people arent being funded by the state just having some od the childcare costs made tax deductible. Its a good start in the right direction. Presumably thats why the limit starts when paying tax and has a high upper limit.

Being a SAHP is a lifestyle choice regardless of whether its because you want, you believe your partner cant possibly work if you do or you cant afford childcare. People choose to have children, surely the costs are part of the financial planning before having them?

I appreciate that the difference between the CB change and this is unfair. They should cut it back so the childcare vouchers are cut off for working parents at £60k each if that's what everyone wants.

But the OP is NBU SAHP do not need childcare no one seems to be challenging this are they?

Besides surely we are talking about a very small number of people.

2 working parents, each earning between £60k and £150k (since everyone is so keen on quoting the £300k) with children under 5.

It must be in the low hundreds?

I fit this criteria and don't think we should get help, if it's a choice of us or parents retraining.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 20:59:42

Yes happymummy, careful financial planning is part of family planning, but when the economy then changes beyond what you could have envisaged and is beyond your control anyway, what worked a few years ago suddenly might no longer work. Then what?

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 21:00:33

The policy doesn't come in for a couple of years. Many people with young children currently paying for childcare will miss out on this anyway.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 21:01:56

I think what Im trying to say is that what the WOHP does during their working life is often dismissed or not recognised .
Teachers, Nurses, Doctors, Post Men/Women, Vets, Bin men /Women, Nannies, Retail workers, Accountants, Physios plus many more .
We need them in society - they are valuable .

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 21:08:49

" People choose to have children, surely the costs are part of the financial planning before having them?"

So is that not true of WOHP's then HappyMummy? If so, why do you need help with childcare costs? Why did you not plan for those costs?

My Dh is a SAHP. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's because he can't get a fucking job. This is despite him graduating with a first in applied computing this June. Before his degree he was a SAHP because he'd been made redundant and couldn't get a fucking job. I only work 21 hours, so we lost our working tax credits this year too. If I could get 24 hours at work, which I can't, we'd still get wtc. Or if he was in prison. Thankfully our kids will be in school by 2015 or we'd have to uproot them from nursery and DH would have to give up looking for work as its not likely interviewers would take kindly to 2 kids being dragged along to interviews.

Pigsmummy Tue 06-Aug-13 21:13:35


This scheme is for anyone, as long as they are not earning too much. If satp's want to buy thousands of pounds worth of childcare vouchers then they too can benefit. No one is getting anything for free out of this. I don't understand the outrage either tbh

No it's not Pigsmummy you can only claim if you both work more than 16 hrs per week and you both pay tax.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 21:23:36

WOHP also contribute to society via their career/job - we all benefit from teachers, doctors, nurses, retail assistants etc
How many WOHP do it for their sole benefit and no one elses ? - they are benefitting society as a whole.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 21:24:34

Sorry to hear that Reluctant. That sounds really shit for you. I so hope you're dh gets a job soon and things look up for you smile

opilo Tue 06-Aug-13 21:26:04

YANBU, if you don't work then why do you need childcare. Similarly why would the Government wish to encourage people into economic inactivity.

HappyMummyOfOne Tue 06-Aug-13 21:28:10

Littlemiss, i dont need help with childcare costs and am a firm believer that having a child means providing for them.

As a policy though, making childcare tax deductible is a good idea. Its an expense of working like travel, uniform etc. Its not giving people money but allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

If we do need to suppport any area for families then childcare is the way to go as its short term. The person earns income, pays tax and will continue to do so after the childcare costs cease. May be even before if the person gets promoted, pay rise etc.

Rinoachicken Tue 06-Aug-13 21:28:41

reluctant that's a really rough situation, hope things get better for you all soon

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 21:30:02

What Little said.

My sister saved hard for childcare pre dc and was able to afford a nanny on a charity workers wage with zero help.Many people do the same.Childcare is only expensive before they start school too.

Have to say I didn't agree with Justine when she said there should be help until they are 14- err just why?Childcare is massively cheaper once they are of school age,the fact people think they should pay next to nothing for people to care for their children smacks of entitlement tbf.

RoxyFox211 Tue 06-Aug-13 21:34:37

Just to clarify when it comes to students, would the new proposal overwrite the current ccg (child care grant) available to students? Effectively it covers all child care costs for undergraduate students. Will it be taken away?! shock I'll be screwed if that's the case.

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 21:36:08

Before and after school care of 8am - 5.30 pm here for two children is over 100 a week. This imo is expensive.

MrButtercat Tue 06-Aug-13 21:39:12

Sorry but if you are on two salaries CB and 2 x tax allowance will cover that.Also clubs and secondary bus journey will reduce costs.

Aside from that just how much do you expect to pay for your children- nothing?

soverylucky Tue 06-Aug-13 21:41:35

Hang on a minute. I pay for my children - get no help and won't with the new scheme. I have pointed that out several times. I was just pointing out that 100 a week is expensive. Just because there are two people working doesn't mean they are rolling in it.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 21:44:57

*Mr Buttercat- entitled ? hmm
Do you have children in school, use public transport, shops, the postal service, internet, hospitals ?
WOHP contribute through their provision of these services ( as do childless people) and you still think a tiny amount towards their childcare bill is ...entitled ? hmm

Thank you ihategeorge and rinoa DH and I are more fortunate than many in our position and have great support from both our families thank goodness but this government enrages me. The bastards! It seems like they are cutting jobs, benefits, rights etc from the poorest in society whilst lining the pockets of their mates and the better off in society. I feel so sorry for everybody suffering under them.

2468Motorway Tue 06-Aug-13 21:58:47

Mr Buttercat

Before and after school care for 2 kids here is 150 pounds a week. In holidays childcare is 300-400 a week for 2 children.

If you think that is cheap then you earn rather a lot.

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 22:04:06

DH is a WOHP. He contributes to all the services you stated, Shitsinger, as did I before I had DC , I have done since I had them, but am now unable to work. When they were pre-schoolers I did the childcare, like all the other SAHP'S do. I honestly don't see why there can not be some sort of tax break to ease the burden on families where one parent stays at home.

Whatever anyone says there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be in employment, there aren't enough nursery places for all children to be in childcare.

SpiceAddict Tue 06-Aug-13 22:14:38

Earlier in the thread Mr Buttercup said:

1 income families on 50k lose CB(even though 2 income families on over 100k keep it and have double the tax allowance)

Some other posters have also said the same

I don't get this? My understanding was that households with an earner over £60k lost CB, with a sliding scale for earners between £50-60k. So how do 2 income families on over 100k keep it and a single income household on £50k not get it?

It is so sad that people have to fight amongst each other like this. There is no easy solution.

SpiceAddict Tue 06-Aug-13 22:19:10

* sorry that was Mr Buttercat

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 22:20:32

Not all children are in childcare littlemiss mine never have been despite 2 WOHP .
The point is SAHP benefit their families vs WOHP who benefit their families and provide employment to childcarers( sometimes) and benefit society as a whole via their job role.

WOHP benefit society more and a tiny amount of their childcare bill is hardly a huge entitlement.

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 22:27:50

I give up, I really do!

Oh, and thanks Shitsinger, for telling all us SAHP's we don't contribute to society as a whole. You must be a Tory PR person's dream! hmm

solveproblem Tue 06-Aug-13 22:28:05

Spice addict: Any family that has at least one person earning over £60k will lose their CB. And any family where no one earns more than £50k will et to keep their CB.

The CB issue has not got anything two do with whether both parents work or not.

However, hypothetically there might be an unlikely case where both parents earn £49k each and will get to keep their CB. This is the hypothetically scenario that is winding people up.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 22:32:55

It isn't a hypothetical situation though solve. It is very real. I have friends where one earns 40k and the other earns 45k. They have 3 BTL properties and will keep all of their CB. We have one earner in the high fifties and a SAHM. We rent as we can't afford to buy a house. I would say the former is way better off than us and they get an extra £130 a month more then us. Now they will get this tax break too.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 22:34:21

I also have friends where the dh runs his own business. She has told me that they will get round this with clever accounting hmm. They also have 3 properties.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 22:36:31

Nope never voted Tory .
SAHP benefit their own families - Im not denying its an important role - within that family as is the role of the WOH parent within that family.
Many WOHP juggle WOH and childcare effectively and give to society via their job roles- they should be helped with childcare.

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 22:40:41

Many SAHPs give to society too. Plenty of SAHMs I know are the chairman, treasurer, secretary of the PTA and playgroup, listening to the children read, going on school trips, etc. In fact, most of the stuff that goes on in our village wouldn't happen if it wasn't for the SAHPs (and the pensioners of course). I'm not saying WOHP don't do this too, but I know plenty more SAHPs who do. Where would David Cameron be without his big society. Perhaps he'll find out soon enough hmm

bearleftmonkeyright Tue 06-Aug-13 22:42:50

I love the notion that sahm don't benefit society. Especially all those mums who volunteer at playgroups, go on school trips and hearing other peoples children read for free. .hmm

ihategeorgeosborne Tue 06-Aug-13 22:46:30

This is all part of the tory big plan. Get all SAHMs out to work, crank up the price of houses so that you have to have two incomes just to stand still. Then we can all be debt slaves till we die and serve our masters for ever. It's all part of the plan. I'm not buying into it. They can get stuffed quite frankly.

Shitsinger Tue 06-Aug-13 22:56:54

I did school reading, swimming, school trips and helped with PTA as did DH - not the sole preserve of SAHP.
I was referring to the notion that WOHP don't deserve a small amount of assistance with childcare - when their WOH occupation directly serves society.

No one has answered - as a SAHP do you use shops ,schools, teachers, doctors, public transport, OTs ,Physios ??
They are often WOHP - do you still begrudge them a tiny proportion of their childcare bill ?

janey68 Tue 06-Aug-13 23:14:40

No one is saying SAHP aren't playing a valuable role. But essentially they are doing it because they believe its best for their own family. A good family with a SAHP will raise successful and well adjusted children. So will a good family with WOHP. And as for putting into the community, volunteering- well, so do lots of WOHP.
There seems to be an agenda here to make out that SAHP are contributing something which WOHP aren't. It's really strange. By all means be a SAHP if that's what suits your family but its a bit of a specious argument to try to make out that they are contributing all sorts of things which other parents don't.
Just be honest- you do it because you want to and you feel it suits your family, and you can afford it

Obviously for reluctant SAHP who can't afford childcare, it's a totally different scenario and this help with childcare may enable them to have more choice

littlemisswise Tue 06-Aug-13 23:28:06

No, Janey I didn't become a SAHM when my DC were little because we could afford it, it was because we couldn't afford for me to work. My wages would not have covered the childcare costs. DH was often away for months on end so I couldn't get an evening or weekend job, and we lived too far away from family for them to help out.

When DS2 went to school I got a part time job which suited me really well. Unfortunately due to the nature of DH's job I had to leave it after 7 months because we had to move 250 miles away. I got another job, in childcare actually. I did the qualifications and really enjoyed my job. I had to leave it after a few years when we had to move again.

Unfortunately my health has deteriorated and I can not work now. Everything is not always as clear cut as it seems. This scheme is very ill thought out, as most of the policies are. When they are cutting benefits for disabled people, people are having to rely on food banks, benefits are being capped it is wrong to give people earning £300k help towards childcare.

Anomaly Tue 06-Aug-13 23:42:48

I think the sahm vs wohm debate is pointless. I also think the government will love that we're all talking about that rather than the holes in this policy. First it won't happen until 2015, it only applies to children under 5 and it just isn't enough.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 00:24:30

I completely agree that things aren't always simple littlemiss

I think part of the problem is that people jump on the headline figures and actually when you think about it, very very few families are going to be earning a household income of 300k and if they are, they will be paying in the region of 8 or 9 k every month in tax. Honestly, the top earners contribute a massive slice of taxes overall so it's completely non sensical to suggest they are somehow gaining.. Another way of looking at it is that they aren't losing quite as much of their earnings!

At the other end of the spectrum, low waged workers already get a lot of help with childcare. Which is right and proper

Personally I think it's a shame the debate on this issue has been hijacked ( not just on here but the wider media) by a very exclusive demographic: the SAH wives of HT tax paying husbands. Really, in the big scheme of things, this group aren't going to elicit great sympathy. Any family with a HR tax payer is relatively well off, and when they have no childcare expenses, no double commute, maybe not even needing to run two cars plus all the other hidden costs of working (smart clothes, dry cleaning bills, professional fees etc ) it comes across as very entitled to be resentful of the small amount of help that's going to dual workers

I disagree with a lot of the detail of govt policies, but the principle of supporting families who are contributing economically is paramount especially as we battle to climb out of recession

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 07:32:46

janey your post interested me and for lower income families you're definitely right - people need help with childcare costs. However what gets people's goat is that when one of you stays at home to do the childcare instead of paying someone else to do it it seems that you deserve no help at all (rightly or wrongly so, it's a 'lifestyle choice' for some to work just as much as for some to say at home), but couples with much higher joint take home pay who both work are still given help. I was genuinely interested to know some figures so I worked out roughly what a couple on £60k would take home versus a couple both on 45k with all the expenses you list (assuming one child, monthly take home pay worked out roughly from the net salary calculator) -

60k couple (one earner)

Take home pay - £3465

45k x 2 couple (two earners)

Take home pay - £5480
Plus proposed childcare help (£100) and CB (£88) - £5668

Minus commute x 2 (£600), other work expenses (£200) and childcare (£1050) - £3818

So even if you took the childcare help and CB away from the second couple they would still have more money in their pocket than the first couple. So why do they deserve help? This is what people see as unfair. The policy needs to be consistent, either we can afford as a country to help 'higher' earners or we can't. Giving help to one group (2 x WOHP) whilst excluding another group (One WOHP, one SAHP) can only be ideological which is why SAHP feel put out. However that's the tip of the iceberg unfortunately, don't get me started on what they're doing with UC etc.

Littlemiss I think many people are agreeing though aren't we?

So you don't want a tax break toSAHP for childcare they don't need. Fine. I agree.

You think the cap on this tax relief should be £60k as per CB. Fine, I agree.

I'm sorry to see this has (probably predictably) turned into a SAHP vs WOHP argument, though at least no one has said those dreadful words "leaving your children to be brought up by strangers" yet! grin

But arguing about the intrinsic worth of SAHP is really irrelevant to this argument, and suggesting that it will force SAHP out to work is ridiculous. If you SAH and therefore don't use childcare, it won't affect you in the slightest, so why do you care? It's a tax break out of the salary of the employed. You don't earn a salary or pay tax to get a tax break from! And if you're home against your will due to high childcare costs, this new scheme may help you.

If childcare is still too expensive for you to go out to work (£1500 a month per child for full-time nursery here in the SE!) then hopefully you'd agree with me that these proposals still doesn't go far enough and all childcare costs should be completely tax-deductible.

I firmly believe that no one should ever find themselves in the position that they can't afford to work. And any short-term loss of tax through childcare, the government will gain back in long-term through more income tax paid due to better career progression without that enforced break.

bearleftmonkeyright Wed 07-Aug-13 07:42:37

Shitsinger, don't come on a parenting website and say sahm parents are only concerned about their own families. That is true of all parents and all parents play an equal role in society whether in paid work or not. Noone disagrees that parents should get parents should get help with childcare costs. But this policy stinks, is immensely divisive and still condemns the low paid to a life dependent on government hand outs myself included. But you can only see the benefits of it from the prism of your own existence.

solveproblem Wed 07-Aug-13 07:43:42

ThereMust: It should pay to work. I think it's only fair that in a family where both parents work, and are sacrificing time spent with their children, have a slightly higher disposable income.

solveproblem Wed 07-Aug-13 07:46:02

ThereMust: And in your comparison a family bringing in £30k more than the other family is only £4.8k better off. How is that fair?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 07:47:23

Right solveproblem. So what if you are in the first couple's situation and can't afford to go to work? For many SAHM work doesn't pay. The new proposals will help but that will still be the case for many.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 07:49:41

And that's very simplistic solveproblem - essentially the couple on £60k are doing their own childcare or the SAHP is 'working' as the childcare. Both parents are still doing a valuable role. Would your opinion be different if the SAHP was a childminder?

solveproblem Wed 07-Aug-13 07:52:04

I've never said that SAHP's aren't doing something valuable, I think they do. But I don't think they need the governments funding.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 07:52:15

Theremustbe... On your figures is it not surprising that family 2 has more money. You have compared family (a) on 60k with family (b) on 90k. So (b) ought to have 50% more cash left at the end than family a, and they don't- your figures in fact show that family (b) is actually worse off, which is what we all know is true from our experience. The other thing is that I don't know many families who only spend £1k a month on childcare, sounds a bargain to me, if you have several kids!

If you were to run your figures again with both families on the same income, the figures would show that family (a) has more money. I dont think that is unfair because what people here are saying is that even together they only earn the minimum they need; it is a lucky family where one parent can earn the 60k you suggest.

What would be interesting would be to work out how cheap childcare has to be before family (b) is better off, and then think about how many kids/ what part of the country you need to be in, before that's actually what it would cost.

That said I agree with the last poster- limit this new benefit to 60k like CB. I understand the "tax band" argument and its probably exactly what they did it, but they were wrong, and there are other ways to assess this.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 07:58:22

Yes I know beast of - it was meant to be a simple comparison to demonstrate the unfairness of the policy (also I did state assuming one child). The point is that the policy is inherently unfair. All the points you and solveproblem are making are valid - but it is a choice to work as much as a choice not to. A WOHP could choose not work and not have childcare costs/ commute. In ten years time they will undoubtedly be in a better place than the SAHP who gave up work. Why should one choice be any more valid than another? Both have pros and cons. And you say that couple b would always be worse off - in my experience a lot of people in that situation have childcare help from GPs etc so that's not always true.

I hope people suggesting a £60k cap mean per individual, not combined income. Because as I said, with two children in nursery, here in the SE you'd need to earn over £36 just to break even on one of your salaries, and the other salary would have to cover rent/mortgage, bills etc. A couple on £60k combined would still very likely not be able to afford for both parents to work.

Batfurger Wed 07-Aug-13 08:08:58

Putting my head above the parapet here, I earn about £115k a year and DH about £40k. Do I count as one of those who's pockets are being lined by the Tories? Because I sure don't feel like one.

I paid just over £30k tax last year, I don't claim childcare vouchers but why the funk shouldn't I? I have a zero personal allowance and the figure that is quoted is tax at 60% on everything between £100-115k.

I don't agree with students not getting them, I don't agree with the limit of 16 hours and I really sympathise with those who are in a catch 22 situation.

Is it that people feel that the more you pay into the system, the less you are entitled to take from it?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 08:09:31

Precisely Annie.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 08:14:09

I think the problem with the debate is that this is a tax policy, not a general comment on the validity of personal choices. Tax has a specific job to do in moving cash around, and it can influence behaviour, but it is not there to validate other choices outside that system. So, for instance, we no longer expect tax advantages for being religious, even though there is lots of evidence that organised religion produces behaviours that are a social good and probably save money on state interventions (I am not religious btw). It is no good looking to the tax system for validation of a choice to be a SAHM.

People earning 60k, or even 45k, are in the minority in this country. The average wage is a lot less. To get the maximum number of people back to work, if thats what it is for, this policy should help families where both earn 20k, which is a much more likely scenario. I am afraid I do think that the poster has a point, who said that families with one higher rate tax payer and a SAHP are in a far better financial position than many of the families this is aimed at, and they ought to recognise this.

A policy which is about reducing the costs of paid for childcare to promote employment cannot possibly be relevant to a family that doesn't have any, or only wants it for leisure purposes. The state may well want to promote SAHM another way, and being Tories they think that's about allowances for being married (sigh), and if they did, I would support it. But it would another policy.

I have been both SAHM (7 years) and WOHM so have lived both sides of the debate. SAHM are not less valuable than WOHM, it's just that this policy is not about them.

We all agree that it should be 60k, not 300k.

I would also point out to people saying that working is a "lifestyle choice" (a ridiculous notion if ever I heard one) that even with tax breaks, unless you are a very low earner, people in work are paying more into the system than they get out. A tax break just means you get to put a little less in, not that you are taking out.

As has already been said, these working people are your children's teachers, your GP, the scientists trying to find a cure for your sister's cancer. For the most part these careers would be irreparably damaged by a 5-10 year break to stay home and avoid childcare costs. Continuing to provide you with the services you need is not a lifestyle choice, it's just life.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 08:15:40

Agree Annie, that's why I thought we should redo those figures at 60k, and then see how cheap childcare has to be before people can be as well off in family b as in family a. I think the answer is probably free childcare- or minus cost, given the other costs of employment!

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 08:23:11

Oh FGS. Yes working is essential, yes for many it is essential to pay bills and also many jobs are essential like the ones you have pointed out. BUT. Looking after the children we all choose to have is also essential. As previous posters have pointed out, why do WOHP need some extra help where SAHP don't? We all chose to have children so should be able to finance this ourselves? (NB not talking about low income families, childcare costs are ludicrous and if families NEED help they should get it. A family on £300k does not need help).

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 08:27:34

Neither does a family on 100k.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 08:31:39


janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 08:40:46

First of all, the family with 2 earners on 45 k are going to have childcare costs which could very easily push them into having less disposable income at the end than the single earner family. You only need to have a couple of kids and you're looking at maybe 1.5k/ 2k every month in childcare bills. Also you have more expenses in the way of commuting etc

Secondly- and to me this is the key point: you aren't comparing like with like. You are trying to compare a family where only one person works with one where 2 adults work. Lets suppose you take a typical working week as 37 hours (and yes I know many people work longer, especially in the income bracket you're describing) then a family with 2 earners are putting in 74 hours (plus still running the home, raising their children) ... Wny would they not get more money ? They are doing more work

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 08:48:11

We all agree the limits are set too high. But that's what they do- they use tax brackets and then recoup that tax some other way on the higher earners, probably by leaving the highest rate band up there for a bit longer. It's foolish of them, because we can't see the whole picture, so we don't believe they will claw it back (and indeed, they might not).

Financial help for SAHP should exist- through transferable personal allowances, I would say- it just shouldn't be linked to paid childcare.

When they put this policy together it will, have been about increasing employment. Their alternatives will have been more skilled immigration (politically toxic) or more retraining (expensive and uncertain). Probably they wanted x amount of money and the treasury only gave them y, so they know the amounts aren't enough.

It's not a policy about reducing family poverty. There have been other things, such as surestart, aimed at that. I agree we could all do with more on this. Sahp families deserve help where they are living in poverty. But it needs to be a separate policy.

I do think we agree on most things. Many families with one earner need help too. People on high incomes don't. This policy has the wrong limits on it. It's not quite enough money for the people who do want to go back to work.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 08:51:13

Janet, if you read my post you will that the main reason they get more money is that the post compares a family on 60k with one on 90k. To be fair, it should compare like with like- single earner and dual earner families both on 60k. That would probably show that any childcare expense makes them worse off, only free childcare would make it the same.

Oh for gods sake theremustbe are you seriously not aware of how much your post proves the opposite of its intent?

The lifestyle choice for the couple on £45k each is for one of them not to work and their income halve?
The lifestyle choice for the couple on a single £60k income is for the SAHp to go out to work and add more money to the household.

Very different.

Plus the dual income pair pay a third more tax and add that £1050 back to the economy by paying for childcare.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 08:57:25

And yes, agree with the others: you are even comparing 2 different incomes : 60k and 90k. If amythjng, your figures show just how little difference there is for the family with 2 earners. You are also very conservative in your estimation of childcare costs.
Theremustbeanotherexplanation: you also mentioned earlier: 'what if the first family; with the single earner on 60k, can't afford for the other partner to go back to work?'
You make the common error of seeing childcare costs as the sole responsibility of the second earner ( usually the mother) It isn't. If one partner is earning 60k then even if the other partner is on a much lower income, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to afford childcare out of their joint income. And besides, many of us have been in the position when where childcare costs are at their highest, you may actually be working for no financial gain temporarily... You have to take a long term view

One thing I do think is a general observation, is that the policies work best for families where both partners have similar earning power, rather than one partner commanding a very high salary and the other earning pin money. I don't know whether that's an intended purpose of the policy or simply am outcome of it. Personally I don't have a problem with it though , because it assumes that women and men are equally capable and equally likely to enter the middle/high earning professions. That's far preferable to policies which assume that one partner (ie father) earns well but has a wife who can't. That would be a terrible indictment and hardly aspirational for our daughters (or sons)

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:05:20

Janey 2 on 45 are not going to have less disposable income than one on 60- far from it.

They'll have an extra tax allowance,CB and a stonking extra salary. If there dc are at school they're laughing.

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:05:53


Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:07:54

Said family could save for the years prior to their dc starting school at 4 like many do and like sahp do to enable their 'lifestyle'.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:08:56

Exactly retro. I give up. Everything I've said has been taken out of context. Never mind. I've stated again and again, no, some SAHP do not 'have the choice to go out to work and add to their income'. As it would cost them to do so. Maybe you have an extra few hundred pounds lying around every month for this worthy cause but unfortunately I, and many others, don't.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 09:10:29

Two on 45k each will have more income than one on 60k. But two on 60k between them won't.

Equally, one on 90k has more than one on 60k. Obviously.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:11:11

And also... (Although I really should give up). I did my example with the intention of using a higher earning joint couple, as if they are earning more, why exactly do they need help?

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:13:05

Look at the figures: it's not a massive difference . And if you were actually comparing like with like ( ie 2 workers on 30k) there would be even less difference.

As for the children being at school: you still have to pay before and after school care and full time holiday care. Yeap, it's cheaper than the all year round thousands that are paid out while the kids are pre school but its still an expense.

I can't help but chuckle at the irony in some ways: I'm often reading on threads that a mum with school age children can't go back to work because of the logistics and expense of organising childcare every morning, from 3 15 to 6 every day, and all through the school hols and Inservice days... Yet suddenly when we're talking about a working couple who are doing exactly that, they're 'rolling in it' and apparently having such an easy time of it

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 09:13:46

Theremjstbe I have tried not to take what you say out of context. I agree that for some families it is too expensive for the second parent to go back to work. I think this policy does not do enough to make that possible, though it is intended to do just that, of course. Bt they haven't spent enough on it.

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:13:49

I dont receive tax credits so always bit confused.

There was the requirement to both be in work for min of 16hours to get working tax credit to which theres a childcare element.

If you were unemployed or only on 1 low income then there used to be the child tax credit.

I belive the the thresholds changed for that as we used to get £10 week child tax credts and lost last year.

think its 26 with 1 child cutting off at 32k with 3kids but I could be wrong.

I did find out a few things through the hm website which kind of baffled me

If you've come to the UK but your family has stayed behind
If your family lives in another European Economic Area (EEA) country or Switzerland you may be able to claim tax credits for them. You'll need to be a national of an EEA country or Switzerland yourself.

Does this mean that the polish pumber can come over here work in low paid job pay just basic tax then get money back and send to family not even living in this country?

I know its same as pensoners in spain and abroad getting winter fuel allowance guess.

Where as a sahm i guess pre having kids could have paid shed loads into system pre kids an most are just taking a career break and would ove to go back to work.

To make work pay with childcare you need to be quite good average earnings, have free childcare family know lots who rely on grandparents so do seem quite a lot more affluent or 1 works part tme unsocialble hours aroun ain earners shift so does not require childcare.
I also imagine a term time job you be better off with kids of school age.

its the unfairness if 60k limit for cb the should be same for this.

just looked at mse this is how it currently works

1 parent has to be working to claim.


How many vouchers can you buy?

Basic rate tax payers (and higher/top rate payers who joined before 5 April 2011 as long as they don't take a break from the childcare voucher scheme of more than 12 months) can pay for up to £243 of childcare with vouchers each month (£55/week). This is PER PARENT so two working parents could get £486 a month of vouchers.

From 6 Apr 2011 new joiners paying higher or top rate tax had their allowance dropped so that all tax payers have roughly the same maximum tax gain. From April 2013 the limits are:

Basic (20%) Taxpayer. £55/week vouchers, max annual gain £930.

Higher (40%) Taxpayer. £28/week voucher, max annual gain £630.

Top (45%) Taxpayer. £25/week voucher, max annual gain £590.

If to get vouchers you need to sacrifice some of your salary, this can have an impact on other elements of your finances that depend on how much you earn - such as pension contributions, maternity pay and more-so it saves you now but costs you later as its nota gift it salary sacrafice.

There are a few circumstnaces in which you could still gain getting vouchers, for example if your childcare costs are above £175 a week for one child or £300 for two or more children.

If you can't claim tax credits then you will ALWAYS be better off using vouchers to pay for childcare, as you have no tax credits to be affected.

also suggest everyone reads this link comparing schemes too long cut and paste has actual aounts for each tax papyer had no idea current scheme went upto age 15 could have sworn it was 12.

I also know the child benefit is seperate issue.

the new child beneft as tapers off between 50-60k .

so any salary sacrafice wether it be pensions, childcare, bike to work schemes actually lowers salarys so means get to keep more cb this owuld be case if earned early 50s gross.

seems wrong 2earner supto 100k keep
that 2earners upto 300k get help.
yet family of 50-60k one earner as sahm has sacraficed her wages as wealthy.

why should my husband help fund other peoples childcare?

A lot of sahm dont get benefits so the state is not subsidising their lfestyle choce.

its the unfairness and the inequality of so many of the policies.

also does anyone think this could be abused by people with own businesses who hire accountants as on paper they can lower their salary and make their sahm wife an employee?

dont mps employ their spouses.

wonder if their child care is paid for or subsidises as know house of commons has a nursery.

Also the joys of self assessment my driving instructor i might get new pad claim its for the job as thats tax deductable. so much more flexabilty in self employment a good accountant can be creative and save loads.

Beastofburden Wed 07-Aug-13 09:17:05

Theremjstbe.. The problem is, you gave your example in a way that suggested the two families were comparable. And they are not, so it was misleading.

Anyway, not flouncing off or anything or making a point, but actually I really do have to go now and deliver youngest DC to a holiday activity. Talk later perhaps.

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:20:41

2 x 45 is £5680 a month with CB for 3

1 x 60 is £3465 minus any pension provision for the sahp,long therm impact on career

Childcare x 3school age would be £100 a week,less if help from grandparents,club days,older secondary etc.

Now unless the second working parent is being chauffeur driven to work I fail to see how they're vastly worse off than the single salary family.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:21:00

Theremustbeanotherexplanation- you keep raising the issue of a parent not being able to afford to work. But parents on low incomes ready get a significant chunk of childcare paid for. This policy extends help to more families. I don't see why you keep raising this point. What actual figures are you talking about, where a family cannot afford to go to work? The only scenario I can think of is where they have chosen to have a large family which is in itself a lifestyle choice. I also think its entirely normal (at least it was to people of my generation who had their children a few years back) that you don't expect to be quids in when your children are small. When we had two at nursery, there was a period of time when we literally would have been as well off if I'd stopped working. Any policy which improves that situation is good though- and this does

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:22:10

Thanks beastof. I really do see the issues on both sides, I'm just trying to point out that it's not black and white. All parents incur childcare costs, whether by paying for it or sacrificing a salary. It just baffles me as to why one is seen by some as a 'lifestyle choice' while the other is seen as an 'unavoidable expense' that deserves some taxpayer support. Surely they are both roughly equal in terms of overall houshold cost/ expense?!

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:23:47

Childcare for 3 school age children £100 a week?! Are you having a laugh? Do you pay your child minder peanuts?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:24:13

janey. Virtually any family where one parent earns over the limit for wtc/ctc with more than one preschool age child will not be able to afford to work. Nursery care for two children can be up to £3k ish per month, not many people's take that home after tax.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:24:36

People! Should have previewed...

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:25:07

Oops forgot to take off the help re childcare from the gov on top for the 2 working- they're massively better off!

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:26:06

School lib very reasonable round here,most have some kind of help too.

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 09:27:44

Club is £6 a session here,not all parents are paying London prices or for full time care either.

Familes vary.

Retropear - the help for childcare stops at 5

I'm really confused now.

There is a policy that is designed to make it possible for two parents in a family to work without childcare costs making them worse off.

This policy clearly does not go far enough if it is not giving enough support to meet this stated aim.

But I don't understand how some people are arguing that the conclusion of this is that there should be no help for childcare costs for families where both parents work and earn £45k? That seems to be the gist of the argument now and I just don't understand?

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:36:03

Well, my childminder charges £5 per hour per child which seems about average. That's an hour before school every day, 2 and half hours after school. Plus school holidays and in service days. I have 2 children so that's £175 per week on a cheap week ( ie no school hols)
Admittedly a fraction of what nursery used to cost (shudder) but still an expense.

As for the fact that some parents use granny as a free childminder, well, you can't legislate against some people getting something for free... And that isn't something that can be relied on or assumed. Yes, I can see that a dual earning family who use granny like that and pay her nothing are going to be very well off compared to mr and mrs bloggs paying nursery fees. But I suspect families who use free childcare pay for it in other ways grin - just read some of the dire threads on MN! And seriously, like I say, what's the point in comparing ? Some parents give their adult children deposits to buy a house - seems unbelievable to many of us, but a gift is a gift, whether its childminding or a house deposit. No one is entitled to it, if they get it, it's a bonus. But like I say, many people prefer to stand on their own two feet anyway as these 'gifts' often come with strings attached

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:36:43

im not sure whats happening when universil tax credits

but to get working tax credits

you need to be workinging upto 24hours combined as a couple

or 24hours as ingle parent

thats great if employers are giving 24hours most giving zero-8hours-16hours with hours changing every week which makes tax credits very complex.

heard far too many horror stories of people being overoaid then clawe back and living in poverty.

The new scheme requires both parentts to be earning 10k each so 20k in total to get the 1200 per child. I did think this must be 29hours at nmw but martin lewis disagrees

(2) You can only claim vouchers if you earn the national minimum wage, around £11,300 for 35 hours a week if you're over 21.

that implies all the families where1works fulltme and other works n superket lose out.

as 35hours is fullltime.

sadly we n a time where good qualified experence people get made redundant from well paid jobs and only jobs avaialible are low pai and competative.

They think ohh i might go back uni and retrain and 1 parent stays in work to support that.
but tehy still need childcare.

i belive university/college childcare funds are discretionary and hard to get combined with 9k a year tuition fees.

mean the redundant parent

has to get lower paid job than only job
cat afford to retarin for job that earns more and probablt pay more tax and mean they have no relance on benefit system.

1200 when childcares 9k a year fulltime means if go out get fulltime min wage job at say 10k a year.

with 2kids in nursery

i would be paying 18k nursery
getting 2400 back
earning 10k


ok i earn 20k
get 2400 back
i make 2k gross

add commute costs

god knows whqat do wth 7year old they dont do afterschool clubs.

work has to pay and with childcare being so expensive this wont tempt many back

the obs have to be there
the affordable chuldcare has to be there
it has to make financial sense.

I know when we both worked fulltime both of us got questionsed over commitment t5o job role she dd1 was sick.

mam29 - why should my husband help fund other peoples childcare?

Seriously? I thought we'd covered this point. Your husband "funds" other people's childcare because a) we all pay taxes that go towards services we don't necessarily need ourselves and b) to allow his doctor, his account, the person who serves his lunch and his children's teachers to be at work and generally interact with him in this thing called an economy.

Can I also remind everyone that the "help" we're arguing about is £100 out of a bill of up to £1500. That's £100 less tax paid to the government, not £100 paid out by the government. Who will have received tax on the remaining £1400 firstly from the parent and then a second time from the childcare provider.

stickingattwo Wed 07-Aug-13 09:38:45

YANBU I think. SAHM don't need childcare. And Working parents should be given help because childcare is so expensive in this country - and we need some parents to work because they contribute in their taxes to the system that so many people benefit from.
Dp and I both work, aren't eligible for any kind of credits or child benefit or anything( lucky us sure cos we earn enough not to qualify, through working bloody hard our entire lives in school, college and work BTW we're both council estate kids originally)
HOWEVER I earn 40k and have 2 kids in childcare - so almost all - and I mean ALL of my take home pay goes on childcare. I am essentially for the next few years working, paying my taxes, supporting jobs in the child care sector for a few 100 quid a month.
I choose to do this because I know that I am maintaining my financial independence, can help get my career back where it was before I took 2 separate years out on maternity, I like my job, and one day I will be better off.
I don't ever see the day when I will claim other benefits from the system I pay into, so yes please help me out a bit now with child care when I really need it.

And anyway, if you use granny as free childminder then you won't be using the childcare vouchers that are at the heart of this discussion!

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:40:16

It just seems like we're moving into the realms of envy now...' Somebody else gets free childcare from granny, it's not fair'
Honestly, there's nothing to be gained from viewing life like that. And I speak as someone who has always paid every penny of childcare out of earned income- no tax credits or top ups. I can honestly say I've never looked at a family who get free childcare and felt hard done by in comparison.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 09:47:33

It's pissing me off that people keep saying that the people working are our child's teachers, our GP's etc. The WOHP in our family is a member of the Armed Forces who buggers off round the world for months on end, so you're all getting your monies worth from our family!

In every family where there are children and a WOHP someone is doing the childcare. Therefore if tax breaks are able to be claimed everyone should be able to claim them. A family with a SAHP on a salary of £25k needs the money far more than a family on a salary where there are 2 WOHPs on £300k IMO.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:47:33

OK janey even using your very conservative childcare estimate (which it is for the SE) - that's still approx £1900 per month for two children - still a very good salary that most couldn't realistically earn.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 09:48:19

Yes littlemisswise couldn't agree more.

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:50:58

I used that example of granny

as we assuming every family has equal chances
pays same
has same childcare provison
access to jobs.

know lots of working parents who manage their childcare through
both so couple days nursery ad childmider.

does the 1200 per child dependent on how many hours child spends in childcare or is just both parents need to be in work?

ifyou used both again I give an example

childcare for year costs 9k full time

use nursery for half of it so spent 4.5 on nursery
use granny for the rest
get 1200 off nursery bill making childcare costs 2k a year.

I know at least 10people locally who do this.

im not jealous just everyone seems to be making lots of assu,ptions how much working couple contribute, earn and make.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:56:07

Theremustbe: which is why any policy which helps families to pay childcare is good!

Look: I don't stand to benefit from this personally at all. When my babies were pre school, I returned to work before they were 6 months old and we paid every penny of childcare out of our income even for the period when 2 x nursery fees cost the equivalent of my income.
I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy and violins- I'm making the point that I can see WHY families with two earners need the help. And it seems supremely ironic that its the SAHM (often in the privileged position of having a HT Tax paying husband) who seem to be jumping up and down and shouting loudest about the 'unfairness' of other people getting help.

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 09:57:57

good point little miss

lots armed forces wives get shit

their hubbys away at war
being moved about all time
must be very hard for them to work
as most dont have family around them.

Janey you work as you earn enough its worth your while too.

as for all thse hardworking teachers

im guessing the hard working classroom assitants wont be earning enough to be eligible under the new scheme.

Dffrent job roles dot make people more worthy or hard working i get mad when i hear about the hard working public sector l,ike private dont!

I really think its so divisive these policies and we detracting from reasons its crap.

I am a sahm i dont expect help with childcare bur would love to share my allowance and although i kept my cb have every sympathy with ones who lost it.

if you live in south east
private rent
and pay childcare
50k gross wont go far.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 09:59:45

My Husband is not a HT payer and my DC are too old to need childcare, Janey. However, I can see this policy is desperately unfair.

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 10:14:03

argued with janey before this.

I can see other peoples ponts of veiw.

janey can only see one point of veiw
the paths shes taken and cant understand the barriers to others doing the same.

the new scheme means couples better off splitting as the single parent earning upto 60k gets the 1200.the dua family 1earner gets diddly squat from tax creduts, childcare vouchers or child benefit.

new scheme only upto age 5
300k too high
1200 not enough of a saving to make a real difference,

i know means test expensive but least t wpuld be fair meants people in need get it and the very wealthy dont.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 10:18:46

No, you don't have a monopoly on seeing other people's point of view.

I can absolutely see other people's perspectives. I have already said I don't agree with all the detail of the policy, but in principle I fundamentally agree with supporting families with dual earners, and I don't think the policy is unfair to SAHP.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they can't see other points of view. Very weak argument to try to resort to that.

MadeOfStarDust Wed 07-Aug-13 10:19:10

Mine is a higher rate taxpayer (but only just), my kids are also older and I am still a SAHM - but the policy does not help those who truly need it (as opposed to those who it would be nice for), it is merely a sop to get the "squeezed" middle back on side before an election - just like the tax break he will announce in November for married couples. Which will probably not apply to those on the higher rate tax band, or widows/widdowers etc etc....

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 10:20:46

Even if I did work, we still wouldn't benefit from this policy as dc3 will be starting school in September 2015. Agree with littlemiss again though. It is unfair. janey, you really do seem to have a huge issue with SAHM, particularly those married to HRT payers. It really comes across in your posts

The thing is this is still open to consultation so we need to highlight these gaps so that they can be addressed. I won't benefit at all from these changes as my dc are all too old, but like littlemisswise I can see the flaws and I agree to an extent with Janey that some help is better than no help, but seeing as they are asking though probably won't listen why not tell them that families earning 300K don't need this help, students and families where one parent is working but on low hours should still be eligible? A parent working just 8hrs a week or a student is likely in the future to be contributing more in the future so should be encouraged. Maybe the help should stop when one person earns above 150 or both over higher tax rate. Or bung it and tax credits, child benefit etc all into universal credit and let anyone who thinks they qualify apply. SAHP putting their dc into a nursery for 2hrs so they can go to the gym in the day probably shouldn't qualify - although obviously nothing wrong with choosing to do that.

But littlemiss, it's not really a tax break as such is it? It's not like dual income families get to spend it on whatever they choose? A dual income family with grandparents caring for the kids won't get £1,200 a year to spend on something else will they?

So to say everyone should get it seems a bit pointless, it is targeted help for a particular cost.

It's like saying instead of free school meals everyone should be given £50 a month to spend on what they want. Because it's not fair that some get more help than others.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 10:29:21

How about tax breaks for commuter costs? Dh spends thousands on commuting and I'd say it's a pretty essential part of getting to work.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 10:29:41

No issue at all with SAHM. Up to couple to decide what they want to do. I'd be a SAHM if I wanted to- and if I did I would be honest enough to admit that and I wouldn't expect govt help for the decisions.

The reason I raised the issue is because in the wider media the issue has been hijacked primarily by SAHM with HR tax paying husbands- there was a massive thing in the news recently about it, with their spokeswoman claiming it was so unfair to be losing CB and wanting transferable tax allowance (funny that these people never want to be taxed as one person when they are both working prior to having children!) It just strikes me that this demographic is hardly going to elicit sympathy. Most people want support for low waged and people struggling to work and pay childcare fees.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 10:34:02

The only person I recall talking about this in the media is that Laura Perrins, the ex barrister. I would agree that listening to her does not elicit much sympathy. The issue I have is with the cut offs for CB vs the cut offs for this. There are many much poorer families that will not qualify for this and I don't think that is right.

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 10:40:37

I don't think anyone is saying that this policy is perfect - there are many flaws. I agree that the 300k limit is crazy but I think this is very few people. However if you are earning just a bit too much to get help with childcare through tax credits then any help for working parents is welcome. It won't help me but I wish that there had been help for me. I had a childcare bill of £840 a month when mine were in nursery. This was all my salary. It actually cost me to work once transport costs had been factored in. We lived off one salary (dh's ) which wasn't massive. It was really, really hard. We got in debt. I did it because I had a good job that I knew would disappear if I left it. I simply couldn't take the risk of leaving and hoping to get something similar when the children were older. It also cost the government money to train me, I had studied for years to get the job and it made sense for me to have short term pain of a large childcare bill to keep my job in the long run. I have to do another 30 plus years before I can retire so it makes sense to do a job I like.
If there had been a tiny bit of help for us then I would have welcomed it with open arms. I used to get the basic 40 a month from tax credits before they changed the thresholds.
Why would me getting help with childcare be a huge problem for people? As I said before - if dh and I were on 150 k each I would totally get your point but for the majority of people who will get something from this scheme they earn far, far less.
This scheme is not perfect. IMO the thresholds are too high, the amounts paid too low and the age limit too low but the principle of assisting some with childcare costs is something I support.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 11:19:51

In principle you're right - SAHP shouldn't be annoyed about this as they don't have any childcare costs so what is there to complain about? In reality, they DO have childcare costs. Giving up one salary is a HUGE cost. Families like littlemiss should undoubtedly be given help above those families with two high earning, working parents. The system is nuts.

Couldn't agree more soverylucky

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 11:20:40

I agree with the idea of this policy, but reading though this thread I am struck by how weird it is that so many SAHPs seem to need validation for their place in the world. It seems a bit pathetic to me.

If you are happy with your choice and you are doing what you consider to be the best for your family, why do you need to be validated in any way by other people or the tax system? Its not a policy that has any effect whatsoever on people who don't pay for childcare.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 11:20:40

There are a few flaws, it needs to go up to age 12 for a start. Whilst a step in the right direction it would have been better to extend the existing scheme and to be able to salary sacrifice more of your own salary.

We all parent be it SAH or WOH. Neither one is more superior, a good parent depends on many factors. Being home all day doesnt automatically equate to be a great parent and vice versa.

I disgree people are forced to be SAHPs though. If your wage doesnt cover childcare (and its a household not individual expense) then you will have known that prior to having a child. It takes one minute to google childcare costs in your area. Those with multiple children all made a choice to have x number so complaining about the costs is futile, its not like they are unknown. Either save beforehnd, work around each other or use childcare like thousands of other working parents do.

If people want to benefit from the new policy then go back to work and pay tax. We are right to encourage people to work rather than rely on benefits as its unsustainable.

celticclan Wed 07-Aug-13 11:31:24

I think people are worried that the government will take away the 15 hour entitlement to nursery provision for over 3s.

I'm not a SAHM I'm self-employed. I don't pay tax at the moment therefore I won't receive the tax break which is fair enough. I do receive the free 15 hours nursery for over 3s. Without free nursery provision I would not have been able to start my own business. If this was scrapped it would prevent parents like me from starting their own businesses.

Studies have shown that preschool education offers children lots of advantages. If this is taken away children with only one working parent will lose out. The government haven't announced plans to scrap this entitlement however it wouldn't surprise me, they never offer anything without taking something else away. The head of Ofsted recommended that free preschool provision is only offered to the poorest families. If the Tories win the next election I would place bets on them scrapping this entitlement. Thankfully I will be past the stage of needing it by then.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 07-Aug-13 11:33:24


People choose to work though the same as a sahp chooses too. They are both life choices. I know some people who work make a profit and pay bills. However, so many people argue they have no profit i.e nothing left after paying childcare and other related costs.
Giving these people help with childcare is not helping them to support their family because they have no money to. Surely if it is fair to support this lifestyle choice then a sahp who is also not making any profit should be given the same.
The argument that the support is only needed prior to the dc starting school is rubbish, unless you believe that wrap around care is free.
If we are going down the road of stopping Tax credits to allow a sahp then we should also stop childcare support when it is not needed.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 11:35:28

Soverylucky- agree 100%

The thresholds need changing, and it's unfortunate that people jump on the headline figures - as we keep saying, how many families with a joint income of £300k are there? Not many! And as they already pay tax of around 8k per month, the few quid they'll benefit from is nothing. Lets face it: the country loses far more in tax if these people decide to give up work and stay at home. It's so easy to just look at the figures and think people on those incomes are living the life of Riley, but tbh it's a tough world out there- if someone is earning 150k they are probably earning it in blood, sweat and a big dollop of stress. I wouldn't want the kind of life which goes hand in hand with the really big bucks, so it would be dishonest of me to resent those who are prepared to do it

And it all distracts from the real issue which is the people just over the threshold, who don't qualify for tax credits and have to pay for childcare, and are both paying tax.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 11:37:54

What morethan said.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 11:41:41

Giving these people help with childcare is not helping them to support their family because they have no money to.

Yes, it is because it's helping them be in a position to be fully self sufficient sooner than they would be if one parent takes years out of the work place.

It's also enabling them to pay more tax, and be more economically active than they would be otherwise.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 11:44:32

A WOHP who makes no profit after childcare can't be compared to a SAHP because the WOHP is still contributing: they are paying tax. The person providing the childcare is also taxed: thus they are continuing to pay into the system even if temporarily they are working for no net profit. There is also the longer term view, that by remaining in employment, they are more likely to move up the ladder and contribute more in future

(Disclaimer: not SAHP bashing. It's a valid choice, but you cannot pretend that it's the same as working. And yes, I know SAHP paid tax while working in their pre children days- but so did the WOHP. The difference is the WOHP continues to do so)

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:07:21

So, Happy if one of a couple is on a zero hours contract and the other is on a wage of £30k how are they going to know if they can afford childcare before they have a family? Should they not have a child? But a couple on £300k who could afford the childcare without this scheme can have the tax break!

Where are all the jobs and nursery/childcare places for everyone to go back to work?

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:09:18

And who said families with a SAHP "are relying on benefits"?

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 12:13:38

Daft to say work is a lifestyle choice, its puts food on the table and a roof over a families head. Financially supporting yourself and children is a very important thing. Suprisingly, lots dont want to be on benefits. Not working is a lifestyle choice as you are relying on either the state or another adult to fund that choice or both even.

Childcare costs do drop dramatically once a child is in school. We can book care for £7.50 for 3 hours after school compared to a full days nursery care its by far cheaper. I cant see where anybody has said its free after they start school though.

I wonder how many of the SAHPs moaning about this claim tax credits from the workers yet want to deny them keeping more of their own wage whilst holding their hand out for their tax credits for doing nothing?

There are lots of tax deductible schemes like the bike one etc, no good to me but im not moaning about them just because i dont benefit. We wouldnt benefit from this childcare one unless we have another child but i do believe its important to encourage workers for the future good of society. If people want to choose not to work, then thats down to them but it shouldnt be funded by anybody but the family.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:22:58

You are so blinkered HappyMummy.

My DH is a worker, even my DC are workers! We get nothing, we have only ever got the basic £40 a month tax credits, but don't get that anymore. We will fund our DC through Uni with no help, no encouragemnt for workers of the future good of society, there!

People on the lowest incomes, the student parents, the ones who need the help from this scheme the most won't get any.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 07-Aug-13 12:28:10


I disagree, and know many people who work and don't earn enough to pay tax so aren't paying into the system neither. Ok the childcare provider is paying tax but there are plenty of dc to keep them employed.

I wonder how many of the SAHPs moaning about this claim tax credits from the workers yet want to deny them keeping more of their own wage whilst holding their hand out for their tax credits for doing nothing? None, as sahps don't get tax credits, households do.
This is where it is unfair, there are households with a sahp losing tax credits, but other life stle choices are to be supported. Wouldn't you complain?

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 12:30:45

But people on the lowest incomes do already get a lot of help With childcare costs! That fact seems to be conveniently ignored

And on the point about 'where are all the nursery places for people to be able to work' - well, I am fully in support of the govt funding more childcare initiatives. The irony is though, that any govt policy which assists parents working - whether it's financial help with childcare or creating more nursery places - is usually jumped on by people claiming the govt are anti SAHP and trying to force everyone back into the workplace!

It's a bit of a no win situation really- they are criticised for childcare costs being prohibitive and the fact that it can be really difficult to work. Then the moment measures are taken to make it easier to work, there are cries of 'stop forcing us back into the workplace!'

I agree with happy mummy- I think there needs to be more honesty about the fact that if you want to SAH, then do it because you believe in it and want it. Don't complain because other people are getting some support towards helping them work.

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 12:30:51

But isn't the proposed scheme a tax break rather than a straight forward benefit? Genuine question. I don't know.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 12:35:51

soverylucky yes it is a tax break. You also don't just get given £1200 per child, you first have to spend £4800 on childcare.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 12:37:12

... And as for people who work but are so low paid that they don't pay tax.. Well, they are contributing to society by doing a job which society wants done. One of my friends is a teacher assistant- I imagine she pays little or no tax as I know the job is low waged. But she is providing a very useful function, doing a valuable job which society needs someone to do. As well as the very valuable role she plays in raising her own children.

I don't know why people keep trying to compare people who aren't working with people who are. They are two completely different situations. The teacher assistant is also keeping her skills updated and will be in a stronger position to earn more in future than if she had stopped working.

That's not a value judgement; it's a plain fact.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:37:49

Having a SAHP in the family is sometimes the only way some families can have children FFS. How many times does it have to be said?

And it cuts both ways. If you think going out to work is the best for you and your family, then do it. Don't expect everyother person in the country to chip in for childcare, especially when hospitals are at breaking point, people are relying on foodbanks, benefits are being capped, disabled people are being losing benefits all together and there's no money in the pensions pot of the public service workers who have paid in for years!

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 12:41:03

But where is the difference between getting a tax break for childcare compared to the many other tax breaks people get for working?

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 12:41:29

Don't expect everyother person in the country to chip in for childcare, especially when hospitals are at breaking point, people are relying on foodbanks, benefits are being capped, disabled people are being losing benefits all together and there's no money in the pensions pot of the public service workers who have paid in for years!

Who do you think funds all this?

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 12:41:50

Sovery, yes its a tax break. So the worker and possibly childcare worker can keep more of what they earn. I dont see any SAHPs moaning they cant take advantage of the cycle scheme etc.

Morethan, it doesnt matter whos name the tax credit claim is in its still being paid as one adult chooses not to work. As for would i complain if nobody was handing me money so that i could choose to not work, no i wouldnt. I am able bodied and therefore should work rather than rely on others. if i chose not to work then i would expect to have to fund that choice myself as its a complete luxury.

Working is not a lifestyle choice, do you seriously think we have enough money in he country for everyone to not work and claim benefits instead?

Its also an indication of why the government are trying to assist workers, if parents are sending out the message to their children that working is a lifestyle choice rather than somethinng adults do. Sad indication of what society has become.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 12:43:33

Sorry my post doesn't really make sense.

Littlemisswise my point is all of those services can only be rescued if more people pay tax, this scheme helps people to work and pay tax, think of it as the government making a move to secure future tax revenues.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:43:40

Not just the workers who have kids in childcare Mrslyman!

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:47:15

SAHP's are not sending out messages to their kids that it is ok not to work. Both my kids were working before they even took their GCSEs, so how does that fit in to your stupid theory, HappyMummy?

Being a SAHP does not mean you claim benefits.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 12:48:19

LOL at the idea of every other person in the country chipping in to provide childcare!! If only!

Look- at the end of the day, the govt is interested in an economically viable country. I've said it before: if having a SAHP was economically better for the country, if it meant we could provide better health, education services etc etc by only having one parent in every family working, then I'm under no illusions... The govt would quickly chase mums one parent back into the home.
But that isn't the case. Overall, going to work and performing a role which society needs doing- whether that's high paid hospital consultant or low paid teacher assistant- IS more valuable to the govt. It's also valuable to the govt to have good parents- because good parents are more likely to raise children who will do well and not be a drain on resources through dysfunction. And good parents are good parents- whether they work or not.

If you believe that you need to have one parent at home to be able to raise your children , then fine- your choice, but don't kid yourself that you are performing some highly valuable function that the govt should subsidise. You are raising your children just as Millions of WOHP do.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 12:48:45

Yes but workers who have to pay for childcare are more likely to stop working than those that don't. You see loads of threads on here from women who are contemplating stopping work because childcare costs are so high, helping them to stay in work protects those tax revenues.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 12:49:38

A lot of SAHP don't get any benefits or tax credits! And yes, working is a. 'Lifestyle choice' if you are relying on the government to find that choice. Why does that only apply to SAHP?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation Wed 07-Aug-13 12:52:35


soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 12:53:09

You pay tax because you work and then you get a tax break because of that. You are not really getting a benefit - just paying a lower bill for the privilege of working.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 12:58:13

soverylucky exactly, the government are just letting you keep more of your own money, however they will only let you keep this money if you pay a lot more money out first.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 12:58:48

So why does every WOHP not get that tax break then, soverylucky, even if they have a SAHP doing the childcare?

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:02:09

littlemisswise because they aren't spending money on childcare.

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:03:21

If I spend money on certain equipment for my job then I can claim back tax on that. I submit a receipt. I can't claim on something that didn't cost me anything.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 13:04:04

NO because more often than not one parent has given up their job because they can not afford child care, so they have sacrificed a lot more!

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:04:38

Also - when dh is at work and I am at home with the children I am by your definition doing the childcare - where would you draw the line in payments. Could I claim more money for when dh is at work?

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:05:07

Actually currently they can get this tax break if they are an employee working in a company that partakes in a childcare voucher scheme, but this scheme isn't open to all tax payers with children.

They are opening up the scheme to more people by closing it to those who have a parent at home available to do more childcare.

Not sure why you think this unfair, tbh.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:08:11

NO because more often than not one parent has given up their job because they can not afford child care, so they have sacrificed a lot more!

Now you just aren't making any sense at all, because tax breaks like this are designed to help people afford childcare so that they can stay in work.

You seem to be arguing that parents should be paid to stay at home, by people who have to pay for the privilege to go to work.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:09:38

I've said this before - but then all these arguments are circular because its the same reasons which crop up!- when someone says they need to have a SAHP in order to enable the other parent to pursue their career...

These situations don't arise out of nowhere. Either you meet a partner who already has a high flying job involving travel and long hours and you willingly enter that relationship knowing that's the deal. Or, you start off in more equal positions but somewhere along the journey, you decide to prioritise one career and let the other take a back seat

We have quite a few couples friends who met at Uni. Same abilities, same qualifications. Some, like us, have both followed pretty much parallel careers, neither earning mega bucks but both earning pretty much equal. Others have taken a different choice, with some, the woman stopped working, the husband took on more pressure and promotions. Some of these women are now saying they'd like to work but can't because of their husbands job.

There is nothing wrong with either of the above choices, but they are exactly that- choices. Both come with pros and cons. It's just a bit disingenuous to make it sound as though you've arrived out of nowhere, unable to work because of your husband. There will have been decisions along the way which meant you arrived at that point.

littlemisswise Wed 07-Aug-13 13:11:48

Soverylucky it is £100 a month IIRC. Families with a wage of up to £300k can claim it if they pay childcare.

A family where one person earns £25k, but has a SAHP because they gave up work due to being on a zero hours contract so would have no clue if they could afford childcare, can not claim that £100. But IMHO they could do with it a darn site more than the family on £300k. That is why it is unfair.

This is just another Tory policy of buying votes.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 13:13:46

Having a SAHP in the family is sometimes the only way some families can have children FFS.

That's why there's a need for help in paying with childcare!

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 13:15:43


"Working is not a lifestyle choice, do you seriously think we have enough money in he country for everyone to not work and claim benefits instead?"

"Suprisingly, lots dont want to be on benefits."

"We are right to encourage people to work rather than rely on benefits as its unsustainable."

Since when does being in a single income household, with a one worker and one SAHP, mean you are dependent on the state/benefits? You've expressed this belief three times now, so you evidently believe it to be true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that having one parent a SAHP = 'benefit scrounger', that the SAHP will never work again but will spend the rest of their days lying on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle whilst the other parent slaves away at work, when since the majority of SAHP used to work before they had children, I image most will seek to return to at least part time work once their child/children are of school age, .

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 13:15:43

Also - when dh is at work and I am at home with the children I am by your definition doing the childcare - where would you draw the line in payments. Could I claim more money for when dh is at work?

No, because you are not paying yourself to look after your own children, and you are not a registered childcare provider. Nor are you inspected by OFSTED.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:16:17

Littlemiss- would you rather the couple on 300k gave up one job and stopped paying the £4500 per month tax just so they can't get that £100 ?!

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:18:53

I have stated many times in this thread that the cut off point of 300k is wrong but the basic principle of helping some workers with help with childcare costs is what I support. Leave the 300k out of it. Do you think that no-one should get help with childcare?

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:25:33

Given less than 1% of workers earn over £150,000 the number of households with two workers earning this is probably very small, so there really wouldn't be a lot left to go round if they weren't included.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:26:34

Actually, I happen to think that two working parents aren't necessarily good for the economy. They have pushed up house prices to stratospheric levels, where many families are now stuck paying extortionate rents to land lords and the housing benefit bill has increased, again due to landlords charging silly rents. Houses were much cheaper when it was normal for one parent to stay at home and care for the children. Also, not all SAHP claim benefits. We get nothing. I think two parents working has pushed the cost of everything sky high, because everything is now geared towards two incomes.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:26:41

For the record, I am quite happy for people on 300k to not get any help- I'm just making the point that jointly they will be paying about 8- 9k every month in tax, and probably doing the sort of job that requires extensive childcare- probably a nanny, so I hardly think keeping an extra £100 as a tax break is going to cut it.

But like others say, let's take the focus off the handful of couples on 300k and focus on the fact that this makes childcare more affordable to many couples on far lower incomes. That's a positive move, and doesn't in any way take anything away from couples who choose to have a SAHP. It doesn't affect them at all.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:27:22

janey68 I just looked this up a family with two incomes of £150,000 a year will pay £120,000 in tax and national insurance. It's probably not a bad idea to let people contributing at this level feel like they are getting something back once in a while, afterall the tax system relies very heavily on goodwill.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:28:02

If you believe that you need to have one parent at home to be able to raise your children , then fine- your choice, but don't kid yourself that you are performing some highly valuable function that the govt should subsidise. You are raising your children just as Millions of WOHP do.

^ Well said.

Children are a choice, if you choose to have one or ten you do so knowing that they are going to need you to financially provide for them for 18 years at least. No point moaning about giving up your job or that workers get a tax break, if you dont like the choice you made you can change it by gaining employment.

Workers keep the economy going, if the government need to do something to encourage more then so be it. Far better to give workers tax breaks than to pay people to do nothing.

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:28:10

I have heard it all now - I am responsible for the cost of housing!

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 13:29:28

ihategeorgeosborne I agree with your last post 200%

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:30:50

The government are not saying " you are a working parent therefore you are getting a payment from us" They are saying if you pay for a certain service then you are getting some of that back. Not all working parents will benefit from this scheme - in fact given the cut off points on age ranges I suspect that more working parents won't benefit from this than will. Therefore it is not that wohp's are more valued that sahp's.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:31:32

Yeap, lets blame those pesky mothers who work. How very dare they! Lets return to the good old days when women teachers had to resign on getting married, and many professions were completely barred to women. In fact lets cut out the middle man- why bother sending our daughters to university- after all, they might come out with qualifications and the aspiration to work!!

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 13:32:00

Not all SAHP are mothers...

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:32:46

Thanks Rino smile

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:33:26

ihategeorgeosborne family house prices are high because of the availability of cheap credit pre-2007 and people thinking that buying houses was a licence to print money.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:33:53

Rino- the vast majority are

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 13:34:29

workers keep the economy going?? come on and go read the alternative view of accounting.

Happymummyofone please get a life - people can lose jobs, they may have chosen to have children when they are well off. They may be one of the many women with children who are first in line to be made redundant by employers.

Honestly get a life. Don't kid yourself!

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 13:35:41

janey, yes the majority are, but your last post was a little...dare I say hysterical? and soley focussed on women. This is not gender issue.

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 13:36:05

equality budgeting something George wouldn't properly consider in a zillion years.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:36:28

ihategeorgeosborne you could also argue that SAHP are bad for the welfare state because they don't earn any of the tax required to fund it.

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 13:37:18

motown - exactly! circumstances change! we don't all have crystal balls to see into the future so we can plan with absolute precision!

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 13:38:27

Unfortunately rinoachicken childcare is a gender issue, I wish this wasn't true but it is.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:38:55

Rino- because it seems to be the agenda among a minority to put more, not fewer, barriers in the way of working parents. And history shows us that it is more likely to be women who are expected to give up careers, to take a back seat.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:38:57

But wouldn't the welfare state be cheaper to fund if the cost of living was considerably lower, i.e. housing?

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:39:08

Its like stepping back in time. Man by virtue of being born make shall have no choice in working but will be expected to in order to fund not only himself but his wife and children. Women shall stay home. Why bother going to school, getting into debt at uni only to not work anyway? Girls and boys should be encouraged to work regardless of their sex or chosen care/job path. We should be showing them you can have both and dont have to quit working just because you have become a parent.

If you need validation or to be paid for looking after the children you chose to have then, well, words fail me.

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 13:40:44

I honestly can't stand the line of " Oh Well your choice - you should not have procreated " I mean if there are babies and children you can't send them back! What the actual F!

Also the house prices are mainly due to where jobs are created. 1/3 of of all jobs created since the end of 2009 have been in London and 3/4 quarters of all jobs created have been in London, the South East, South West and in East Anglia.

So it is a North South Divide.

Don't forget the ultra-rich international buyers which George and Dave so love and they create a real bubble in the London property market.

soverylucky Wed 07-Aug-13 13:41:34

A builder sets up his own business. He purchases safety boots and helmets. He can claim back tax on this. He has had to purchase these items. Should I get annoyed that he got some of his tax back because he purchased something that I do not need or want?

I go out to work. I pay a nursery/child minder to look after my children. I get some money back through the tax because I have had to pay for this. What is the difference?

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 13:45:28

Happymumofone Who is stepping back in time?

You do know Maggie Thatcher never let them cut child benefit because of the impact it would have in disadvantaging women.

I don't think you actually get a number of issues, from the pay gap, from women still not being equal, men still holding the majority of highly paid offices, to SAHM's not being valued by society.

You were the one talking about all these choices.

Tell me where women can choose to be paid as much as men? Tell me why hasn't that happened yet??

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 13:51:18

Motownmover- you seem to be raising several different issues now

Making childcare more affordable HELPS women to stay in the workplace. It helps them improve their earning power.

As for SAHM not being valued... I think this is the rub. It keeps cropping up. Surely you do it because you want to, because you feel it's best for your family? Therefore the Validation you get is from within your family. Hopefully your partner appreciated and values what you do.

Just like I appreciate and value my husband for being a good dad, and he values me for being a good mum. I don't expect any other form of validation over and above that. Why would I?

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 13:56:32

If it was valued more parents would be helped to do it.They're not.They're told they don't want to get on,aren't hard working and their CB is taken off them.

It's appalling.

It's hardly a big want desiring to be there and to be the one raising your dc 24/7 in the early years.

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 13:57:29

No Janey sorry no I raised those issues earlier in the thread.

If posters are going to spout BS like saying that SAHM are not net contributors.

The Govt is only going to make ccare more affordable for people with small children. They are going to take away ccvouchers from wrap around care. They are going to reduce the number of baby places at nurseries because of where they want to fund places.

Lots of women I am sure are a SAHM because they can not afford to work - 1200 won't go far to nursery costs in London.

I don't need validation from a man - and think that is a bizarre and sexist comment.

I actually work as well as being on mat leave Janey but I think that much economic activity takes place in the form of unpaid work by women in both developing and developed nations.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:59:03

I dont see why SAHPs want valuing by society, its of no benefit to society to not pay tax or claim benefits as many do.

Women are not yet equals in the workplace but we do ourselves no favours. Lots never return when they become a parent, some go back part time and therefore limiting what work and role they can hold if only there x hours etc. For those that want to go far and parent it can be done, isnt xenia a high flying lawyer and a single parent to three children? Lots dont want to be high flying but just have a job that they enjoy or one that covers living costs, whether male or female.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 13:59:12

As far as this government's concerned Retro, it's the devils work. We are lower than low. They can F right off as far as I'm concerned. I will be cheering loudly on election day, when those smug, self-satisfied tossers get booted out of Downing Street.

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 14:02:23

happymummy theres that 'SAHP must be claiming benefits' thing again...

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 14:02:37

Men dominate most institutions that rule the economy.

Don't you think that women who do rise to leadership in business, finance and politics often find themselves having to play by rules that don't suit women?

If you don't play along you are left out.

So bad policy is made over and over pitting groups of society against each other - the deserving and undeserving poor.


So as well as women not being considered for roles they are also likely to leave some positions. Hells bells they may actually think raising children is one of the better things to do in life.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:03:32

Oh for goodness sake, you're the one saying those things about SAHM not anyone else. No one is saying you're a lazy good for nothing if you're a SAHM. We're simply saying its a choice, it's not better than going out to work (and also raising your children btw) neither is it worse.
It's one way of doing it, that's all.

To go back to the OP, this is about enabling parents who pay childcare costs to not have to pay quite as much. It's not giving them any extra, or some huge advantage, it's just keeping those horrendous costs a bit lower. It doesn't affect someone who isn't working at all.

The OP made a comparison with JSA... To me it's disability benefits which springs to mind.. It's rather like me as an able bodied person begrudging the disability allowance which some people get. Like I'm envious of them needing it. I mean, come on...

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 14:03:54

Happy errr and being a sahm means you shouldn't and can't have a job later because..........

Staying at home for a while is the best thing for many children and families. Most families don't have the Xenia experience with 2 working parents,far from it.

You know what the needs of children are never factored into these discussions and it stinks.

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 14:04:23

"I dont see why SAHPs want valuing by society, its of no benefit to society to not pay tax or claim benefits as many do."

OMG OMG as Jonnie Mac says you can't be serious.

Women who are unpaid do most of the productive work in this world - FACT!

You need to read more Mummyofone

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:06:55

It's not a big want Retro, but it's not got any value to anyone except your own family. Why do you feel the need to be valued by people who you don't really have any value to?

In my experience, SAHPs do have a value to society for other, unpaid things that they often do, like running PTA events, toddler groups, breastfeeding support groups or any other voluntary thing they do. But then they get validated and appreciated by the people/organisations/schools that they are helping.

tedmundo Wed 07-Aug-13 14:07:22

My eyebrows are in my hairline at this thread.

There seems to be a thinly veiled contempt for sah parenting being expressed on here. Only contributing to their own families, not paying taxes, having the audacity to, you know, use public services!

If that was said about full benefit claimants on here, you would (quite rightly) get a roasting.

This should not be a battle of who is the most righteous. I think we are all trying to do the best we can with the hand we are dealt. As with all policies, there are winners and losers. Hopefully the government can cobble something from this that benefits the majority who need it, in as fair a way as possible.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:08:08

Who says having one parent at home is best for many families? It's a decision you can only make about your OWN family.

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 14:09:41

retro you're wasting your breath I'm afraid, I asked happymummy the same question a couple of pages back and she didn't reply to me either.

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 14:10:26

You live in a remarkable bubble Janey and Happy - good for you.

Let's hope some real life doesn't come your way so you can keep making those wonderful smug choices!

Shitsinger Wed 07-Aug-13 14:12:48

House prices didn't rise because women went out to work .

They rose due to the economic growth in the 1980s,demand for housing, lack of housing( caused by increased health and longevity, changes in social practices( wanting to own a property), increasing birth rates )
Changes in lending practices(to those with poor credit ratings and increasing LTV rates) and the buy to let industry ( often fuelled by the pensions of those long lived pensioners) contributed as well.
Never mind lets blame women instead eh ? hmm

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:13:01

Don't talk to me about the real world - I live and work in it. It's bloody hard raising children well and working while doing it, and if other people can benefit from those childcare costs being a tad more affordable then bloody fantastic.

Viviennemary Wed 07-Aug-13 14:13:22

I'm usually in the middle with the SAHM v WOHM. But honestly I am losing sympathy with the SAHM's and their whining.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:13:22

Women who are unpaid do most of the productive work in this world - FACT!


Do you have a link that supports that FACT in the UK Motown?

I don't think I contributed to that when I was a SAHM unfortunately, even with the voluntary work I did, because I do the same now that I'm in paid employment anyway.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:14:47

Seems to me if anyone is living in a bubble it's the SAHP who don't want to work (because if they did, they'd benefit from the proposed tax breaks) but also don't want WOHP to benefit from them either.

Talk about dog in the manger..!

motownmover Wed 07-Aug-13 14:19:05

SAHP do actually work it just isn't accounted for in the male dominated economic measures! Oh FFS working is not always just a simple choice JAney if you have children you need to arrange affordable childcare which is not easy even with a 1200 kickback!

Women do the majority of the productive work in the world.

I honestly find it funny that women would dispute this.

Do some reading up on GDP and what is doesn't count!

SAHP who don't want to work (because if they did, they'd benefit from the proposed tax breaks) but also don't want WOHP to benefit from them either.

This is the bit I am finding very weird.

Using the lack of affordable childcare is a barrier to working argument - i.e. that's why they stay at home but simultaneously saying that they think this is a bad idea

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:22:37

Agree Janey, people make the decision for their own family and its a personal choice. Having one parent home isnt always the best, especially if the other partner isnt a high earner meaning the child grows up in a low income household where opportunities may be limited. Not every parent, working or not, is a great one and some children may need other adults in their lives.

As for "women who are unpaid do the most productive work in this world" mmm very subjective. Given the amount of SAHPs on here who expect their partners to do the houswork when they get home as they claim "they are at home to care for children not do the housework" its not always the case. Some may cook, clean, volunteer and care for children just like many WOHPs.

Motown, i dont live in a bubble at all. Are you suggesting WOHPs live in a bubble? Does that apply to the spouses of the SAHPs?

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 14:23:12

if you have children you need to arrange affordable childcare

agree motown, and this is impossible to do if you are only on a single income but the SAHP is trying to return to work.

I said it earlier but I'll say it again:

You can't arrange the childcare without the income
You can't get regain the second income without the childcare

Catch 22

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:23:14

Brokensunglasses- I agree, it's bizarre isn't it?
I was at home on two maternity leaves, and I also worked a 3 day week while my children were pre schoolers. All very enjoyable and worthwhile; but I fail to see what I was contributing then, that I don't also contribute now, alongside working full time.

racmun Wed 07-Aug-13 14:25:08

Omg this is going round in circles.

SAHP don't need childcare, therefore don't need £100 a month tax break towards it. Tbh does £100 actually make that much difference to an individual family- not really. As a country though this policy will cost billions which as a whole we probably can't afford. It is just the Tories trying to win votes. I vote Tory and I'm a SAHM.

However the tax system needs to be fairer and allow the SAHP to transfer their personal allowance to the working parent.

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 14:25:18

motownmover I don't understand why you are so against this tax break? If you want women to be more valued and have a stronger economic position then a tax break which provides a greater choice for staying economically active is surely a good thing?

mrslyman Wed 07-Aug-13 14:26:19

rinoachicken but once you start working you qualify for this tax break? So I don't really understand your point.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:27:31

Rino- 'twas ever thus... Childcare always has to be paid upfront before income received. I still don't get why someone who isn't working begrudges someone who is, getting some childcare help. Btw I am all for one off payments to cover childcare for interviews to enable women to get back into the workplace, and loans to cover the initial months childcare payment.
But providing childcare for people who are choosing to be SAHP? Ludicrous

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:27:36

janey and Happy always seem to be the most ardent SAHM bashers on all of these threads. Chips on shoulders me thinks hmm

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:29:13

Have had a brief look on the page you linked to, but I'm finding I can't really take it seriously as it lists work as only what takes place between 9am and 5pm, and features 'Cathy', whose unpaid work is almost identical to what a WOHP would do in a day, and includes talking to door to door salesmen.

It's really quite funny!

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 14:29:24

mrslynn because childcare fees are paid in advance. If you are in the situation where a single income is no longer sufficient and so the SAHP is trying to return to work, it's very unlikely you'll have a months or terms worth of full time childcare fees just lying around

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:32:31

You also vehemently defend that you worked and brought up your own children. So when they were at nursery and needed a nappy change, you didn't do it. When they wanted a cuddle, you didn't give it. When they were hungry, you didn't feed them. Someone else did all of those things for all of those years. I did and continue to do it all myself and it's actually bloody hardwork. I have many WOHM friends and they all say that they go to work for a break, so don't you start banging on to SAHM who has the moral highground. I DON'T claim any benefits BTW for the umpteenth time.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:34:10

Nobody is bashing SAHPs, its the SAHPs whining they dont get a tax break to help pay for childcare despite neither paying tax nor needing childcare!! Or stating that want validation for doing "unpaid work" and volunteering despite lots of working people with and without children doing exactly the same plus a job.

I dont give a monkeys tail what anyody else does with their life as long as its legal and they fund their own choices and dont expect the state too.

Begrudging a tax rebate when you aren't paying tax is petty.

Rinoachicken Wed 07-Aug-13 14:34:25

janey I don't begrudge the tax break, but for the reasons I've stated it won't help anyone return to work, only people who are already working.

If there was a one off 'returning to work grant' or loan to covere the first months childcare fees or whatever, I would be delighted and more that happy to pay it back once my husband was earning again, since it would have enabled him to earn again.

And I think that would ba a fantastic thing for the governemt to offer, so those who do want to return to a double income, through financial need or desire, can be helped to do so, and yes then two people wouldbe paying tax and contributing to the treasury blah de blah.

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 14:36:22

Racmum not just married tax allowance but between partners and the threshold for CB capping needs to be identical to childcare help ie you don't get it if you have a joint income of £300k.

Whilst we're at it all other universal benefits need the same treatment.

That is fair.

Until then the Condems can whistle as far as I'm concerned.

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:36:59

I considered CB to be a tax rebate, but no one considered that when they stripped us of it.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:37:39

What makes you think there is a moral high ground to fight for and claim ihategeorgeosbourne?

And what makes you so sure you've got it if there is one?

No one has a problem with the choice you have made for your own family!

And I would dispute this

Someone else did all of those things for all of those years.

Someone else did some of those things some of the time. It doesn't mean the parent didn't ever do them at all. They did it in addition to paid work, albeit fewer times than a SAHP.

strawberry34 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:38:28

Yanbu, I don't get why a sahp would want childcare vouchers or begrudge those who need them having them. I pay a lot more tax than I recoup in tax rebate on vouchers, surely it's no big deal, just an incentive to work?

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:40:49

Broken, I was just getting the feeling from a couple of posters on here that I contribute nothing and WOHM are the salt of the earth and the whole world would collapse without them.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:41:11

Oh bingo, I think we've reached the REAL issue for ihategeorgeosborne and the militant WOHM bashers... You just want to try and make us feel guilty for not changing as many nappies as a SAHM!!
Oh dearie me...

Viviennemary Wed 07-Aug-13 14:42:08

How can CB be a tax rebate. It is nothing to do with paying tax. Or have I missed something all these years.

janey68 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:42:25

No one other than SAHP have said SAHP contribute nothing actually. Stop beating yourself up for your choice. And don't beat up other women who make a different choice

Retropear Wed 07-Aug-13 14:43:18

hmm Janey

ihategeorgeosborne Wed 07-Aug-13 14:44:56

Vivienne, it was called family allowance, which used to be a tax allowance paid to working families with children. Labour changed it to child benefit and broke that link.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:48:04

To be fair though, a SAHP who doesn't do anything other then look after their own children doesn't contribute anything.

And that's fine as long as they aren't taking financial hand outs to enable it. I really don't think anyone has any issue at all with a SAHP being supported financially by their partner.

But please don't pretend that changing your own child nappies and feeding them when they are hungry is a contribution to society. It isn't. It's valuable to you, your child, the rest of your child's family, and that's enough.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 07-Aug-13 14:49:03

Erm, I might have pissed on your point a bit there Janey! Sorry!


morethanpotatoprints Wed 07-Aug-13 14:53:17

Janey, surely you have more confidence in your choice for a stranger on an internet forum to make you feel guilty.
Which sahms have said they contribute nothing?

I'm a sahm and I said that people who contribute nothing are the working parents who receive help with child care, don't pay tax due to low earnings, work in min wage job (so your argument about promotion doesn't wash) make no profit so not paying any bills, but expect the state to fund their life style choice. They are no different than those receiving tax credit allowing a sahp. It is exactly the same.

Shitsinger Wed 07-Aug-13 14:57:22

I used the contribution/value of WOHP to illustrate why they should get help with childcare - that they provide the services we all need and use.
This was turned into SAHP are not valuable, when I said they are ... to their families and their children.
I am actually part SAHP/part WOHP- I wont benefit from the payments at all as I don't use childcare. I still think that WOHP should gain from this and women in particular might not be forced to give up the career they have trained long and hard for- why anyone would fight against this is beyond me !
It still gives you the choice to be a SAHP if you choose to and can afford to.

mam29 Wed 07-Aug-13 14:57:37

Been out all morning entertaining the kids.
all 3of them.

last week had job of taking all 3 to breastfeeding group as I volunteer and runs all year round.

This summer hols I have preschool business plan and end of year accounts to complete to return to charities commision.

so yes im a lazy sahm of 3 who claims no no benefits other than child benefit who lives off her husband who does pay taxes.

in addition to income tax

we pay vat
road tax
tax on petrol
council tax.

make our landlord very wealthy
support local enconoy and local shops
pay nursery staff for middle ones preschool education.

if my yiounger 2 dont get school place im prepared to home educate them for a while home educators get paid nothing in uk in usa its tax decductable.

I know a few who help elderly relatves they not offically pad as their carers .

a sahm wanting to go interveiws.
has pressure to earn 11k according to martin lewis to be even eligible for these vouchers
who cant afford upfront nursery fees
employers want full flexibility.
nurseries do not offer ta