In the news today! Rant alert!

[kickassangel]

So. I sometimes look at the UK front pages and have seen two things which seem so off the chart ridiculous that I can't believe someone thought them let alone said them out loudly and obviously enough to end up on the front page.

1. Sahm have made a lifestyle choice so shouldn't get childcare vouchers. Yeah, right so poverty and lack of choice and the recession and shitty non family friendly work places have no influence on sahm choices. NO mention of the dads and their choices. NO mention of the kids and how they benefit (and therefore society at large on future years). Just have a cheap go at mums.

1. A countess telling her housekeeper she mustn't get pregnant. So much wrong with that I can't even begin.

Ffs. Some days I just want to have a holiday some place where I don't have to encounter this crap.

[gaelicsheep]

Weeell, playing devil's advocate, I suppose SAHPs don't actually need childcare and therefore they don't need childcare vouchers. However I know how much my DH does need a break sometimes, and in the absence of any family to help childcare is how we achieve that and we have used vouchers in the past. It's a bit crap if they are going to be excluded in the future given how hugely expensive childcare is.

The people who really do NOT need childcare vouchers are rich people earning £300k a year, for whom the cost of childcare is surely a drop in the ocean. Makes me very angry.

[gaelicsheep]

And I totally agree, the whole notion that SAHPs have made a lifestyle choice is utter bolleaux. Unless it really is considered a lifestyle choice to choose not to work for negative numbers.

[belatedmaybe]

If you are a sahp why do you need childcare? If you want to work then you have the option to work and then you will qualify. I don't really understand what the issue is tbh - apart from, possibly, the language used but I think that is a side issue.

I can see a huge problem with a country cutting back for the ¿fourth? time on the poorest in society offering tax breaks to families with a joint income of £300, 000 pa. Surely that is the bigger issue here?!

[gaelicsheep]

There are times when a SAHP does need childcare. Long term illness for example. But I agree this isn't the main issue. However as a hard working main breadwinner on a distinctly average income I am losing child tax credit, now losing the option of a tiny amount of tax deductible childcare for my ill DH to have the benefit of. And at the same time people who are rich, by any standards, get to leech money from the taxpayer. Doesn't seem right or fair, but I've long since given up expecting that from this bunch.

[gaelicsheep]

In fact I would go so far as to say that a couple with two of them earning 300k between them are the ones making the "lifestyle" choice, and they should blardy well pay for their own childcare as a matter of principle!

[kickassangel]

Yes, it's the complete lack of understanding of the 'choices' that many families, particularly the less wealthy, are forced into. And complete ignorance that the scheme is to benefit children, often the ones from poorer families, who need and benefit from some childcare. It was originally used to help ease problems with children who started school unable to use a knife and fork or dress themselves properly etc. helping those children to succeed helps all of us, as education is such a key to helping individuals and progressing society. The vouchers aren't to give mum the luxury of a bit of a break, they are there to safeguard the most vulnerable in society, young children whose parents may have very little income.

And why specifically mention mothers? For every child there is a father. whether he's around, absent, working,or the SAHP, his actions will have influenced the decisions leading to one parent being at home.

[Crumbledwalnuts]

They should definitely introduce child tax allowances, absolutely.

[belatedmaybe]

Child tax allowances would only work if you are paying sufficient tax - therefore leaving the poorest out. As an example my work pays a petrol allowance. It is pitiful and, in theory, should be a certain minimum. Because of the way the rules work the difference is made up by a tax allowance paid back at the end of the year by hmrc. Unfortunately, on my zero hour contract, I don't pay sufficient tax to qualify. Essentially meaning I pay out of my minimum wage to provide a car for my employers. I get no choice though as I cannot turn down or leave a zero hour contract.

[rosabud]

I haven't got anything to add to the debate about who should get childcare vouchers but I want to say that this thread made me think of the "consent" discussion, explained so well by Beachcomber which has been part of the Invisible Men Project thread. Could "choice" or "lifestyle choice" (in relation to women/parents/people in low paid work or stay-at-home parenting) be viewed in the same way? How can something be described as "choice" when it could be dependent on so many other economic/social factors?

[kickassangel]

Think of people who are in minimum wage retail jobs (potentially on a zero hours contract). Their 'choice' is to not have children or to give up work and be a SAHP. Now they are being blamed for choosing this.

[aturtlenamedmack]

Agree with kickass
Pre-school education is extremely important and beneficial to children. Access to this should not be limited to those children whose parents work.

[peteypiranha]

If you are on low income there will now be free 15 hours for every 2 year old without sahm or working parents. This is also given to the 3-4s. There is more support for those on low incomes.

[ClassyAsALannister]

I do actually agree.

I'm technically a SAHP as I'm on benefits 100% & am a full time student but do it all from home via Open Uni. Won't start work til he's 5.

He's been given 15hrs free nursery care this year which has:

a.) Made it so much easier (well, in comparison to without it) to study & therefore not quit my course, which will eventually get me off benefits.

b.) Had helped his speech so much (he's an only child & we're a bit isolated half the time)

c.) It's helped with lots of his social development, which is obviously very good for school & life in general. I can't actually believe how far he's come in a few months with the speech, sharing, confidence etc.

So I think it's great that they acknowledge this but think it is an insult to other SAHPs, especially those who have the same problems (i.e an only child, may not live near baby groups but also doesn't drive etc). I understand that money doesn't grow on trees but why limit it so much when it clearly benefits children whatever income background they come from?

[ClassyAsALannister]

And yes...another argument against giving it to SAHPs that only addresses the mothers choices

[ClassyAsALannister]

Oh and last bit, the problems we have with being cut off, not having a car etc are not exclusive to those on benefits so the low income thing seems to be a bit of a distraction technique.

[motownmover]

Peterpiranha - but this will mean baby places that are subsidised for working parents will be lost. This will mean working families getting by without benefits will not be able to afford childcare easily.

CCV were better for most working parents and could also be used by a SAHM if they were in receipt of them while on mat leave or by way of a partner's employment.

I think SAHM should have access to childcare too.

This govt is screwing women left right and centre - by pensions, by CB which usually went to women.

[Ledkr]

I must admit to feeling a tiny bit peeved that my vouchers next year will merely go towards my childcare bill where if I was a Sahm then I'd have five mornings to myself but I realise that's just sour grapes

[peteypiranha]

The low income group are the ones recieving it as they much more likely to have chaotic lives, parents with alcohol and drug problems, speech and language difficulties, social services involvement etc, and it helps the children to be in nursery to learn new skills.

There arent even enough nursery places this year in many areas as so many children are being funded by the governmant. Its caused a sudden shortage.

[peteypiranha]

xpost motown why will subsidised places for working parents be lost? There will still be 70% off childcare paid through tax credits, childcare vouchers, and 15 hours free at age 3?

[Ledkr]

I also think that high earners shouldn't get them and give longer free places to families who have less.

[NotDead]

Its great isn't it, this myth of 'choosing' your circumstances. I get told this all the time by SERCO advisers. I went in and told them I had 'chosen' to be a CEO of a blue chip that morning, but that somehow the universe hadn't shifted and could he help.

This myth is what allows people with massive houses and wealthy family backgrounds to say 'these people are poor because they 'chose' to have a shit life whereas I 'chose' to spend £60K on my education from my dad's money and 'chose' to move to London and work for free for a year.

When I tried to 'choose' this, somehow noone would give my dad six times the value of all the family assets so I could piss it up a wall.

Weird that i hate my dad for all his poor choices - why couldn't he have chosen to be bernie eccleston the lazy good for nothing bastard

[motownmover]

I also think 15 hours while a good start isn't really going to help people who are parents get back to work.

Many nurseries have say 2.5 hours a day and then allow one day where a child stays till 3pm.

Having looked for a job (after taking redundancy) I had to use my savings to put my child into FT nursery and then spend day and night applying for jobs and interviewing. It took 4 months full time effort to get a job that paid less than my previous one and cost me the full time childcare too. When my DH came home from work I then searched at night. I got lots of bull shit questions too - like "how are you going to work at a stressful job now you have a young baby?". Despite having an exemplary employment record and having had worked for a fantastic company previously.

I find it very interesting just how disadvantaged women are and how vulnerable they are as a group to govt cuts.

[ClassyAsALannister]

^The low income group are the ones recieving it as they much more likely to have chaotic lives, parents with alcohol and drug problems, speech and language difficulties, social services involvement etc, and it helps the children to be in nursery to learn new skills.

There arent even enough nursery places this year in many areas as so many children are being funded by the governmant. Its caused a sudden shortage^

See, most of the kids at this nursery are from a similar background to DS and despite most of the parents being on benefits, like me, they seem to be fairly stable, capable parents

I think that's a bit of a myth in all honesty and if it were the case, surely troubled families would get a referral to the nursery to save money by not giving 'stable' low income families the free childcare.

[peteypiranha]

I suppose it depends on the are here lots of parents use their 15 hours to work. They just say what hours they are working, and thats the hours they do.

I am surprised you have been asked those questions. Its never came up for me. I hope by the time my daughters are old enough childcare will be fully funded for all so they can keep working like me. I think the support you get nowadays is fantastic, but could be extended even further.

[peteypiranha]

Its really not a myth classy unfortunately. Not saying all low income parents are like it, but there are some terrible low level neglect situations as well as poor parenting that may be passed on from the parents to the child, same as the parent recieved themselves. Som you can help and want help, and some you cant, but its good having the children in a place to help them and the parents.

If you only had it for some children on referral then lots would slip through the net.