Advanced search

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

(732 Posts)
AnnieLobeseder Tue 06-Aug-13 14:46:43

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".


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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

ExitPursuedByABear Tue 06-Aug-13 17:18:42

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.

3birthdaybunnies Tue 06-Aug-13 17:27:15

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now