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".
<blinks at motown and tries very hard to understand what her point is except that that there's a lot wrong with this policy. Which we all agree on anyway>
Okay, another angle. Say everyone who uses childcare can claim back £100 a month no matter what (unless they earn over £60k because the consensus seems to be they shouldn't get any help). Let's assume a monthly full-time childcare bill of £800, a generous estimate if you consider costs in the South East.
A set of full-time working parents paying out £800 for the full-time place and claiming £100 back are getting 12.5% of their bill paid.
A SAHM may use two sessions per week for whatever reason - job seeking, hospital appointments, volunteering etc. I hesitate to think a SAHP would need more than 1 full day a week of childcare without not really being a SAHP. So with a monthly cost of £160, and being able to claim back £100, they are getting 62% of their bill paid.
But not all WOHPs, full time or otherwise, use full-time childcare, so they might get any random percentage of their bill paid.
Which isn't fair to the parents using full-time childcare.
Or we could just accept that very few tax breaks or benefits are fair on 100% of the people 100% of the time and look at the people really suffering under this new proposal. I'll give you a clue - it's not SAHMs . It's students, it's carers, it's low-income families and it's job-seekers.
This thread really has highlighted, however, why the government should just do what most normal countries do and directly subsidise childcare providers or offer state-run childcare at prices which are affordable in the first place. For some reason though, there are horrified gasps and protests that childcare standards would drop to Victorian sweatshop levels if that were to happen. It baffles me, it really does.
Flatmum- I would just like to point out that staying at home DOES cost you £1000's each year because YOU are the childcare worker and by staying at home YOU are losing an entire annual income as you don't get paid to look after your own kids. Not all SAHP are yummy-mummy's whose other half has a highly paid job and spend all day shopping. We struggle financially for this decision.
I'm a SAHP (definitely not a rich one) but would imagine that there would have to be some money leftover after the nursery/nanny has been paid to make the going out to work worthwhile, even if it isn't as much as they'd like. SAHP are frustrated because it's not the easy option, can be bloomin' hard work at times (though great fun at others) but you're left feeling like you don't contribute to society because you don't work outside the home, and isn't recognized by the government as a valid role and you are even penalised for making this particular choice.
Whether you go to work or stay at home, either way kids are going to cost you A LOT of money!!! ��
I personally think if you arent entitled to tax credits then you cant be struggling for money that much as the thresholds are high for that.
Yes you can petey! Eapecially London a and south east. Our total bill for childcare, rent and council tax is £2200 per month, and we've got cheap rent for this area!
Sorry I meant if 1 of you is working such as areujoyful as you would have no childcare.
I think they would be better off putting the money into state run subsidised childcare. (Maybe look to Denmark) oh and insisting of flexibility
There is one childminder here who is full with a waiting list. There are two heaving playgroups that only do mornings. I know this is quite common place.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.