To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

But, morethan, the evidence shows that keeping someone in work, even if this means that they need to be topped up Tax credits for a period of time, is a better investment economically than topping them up to not work.

That's the fundamental point you're ignoring.

It's not about personal family decisions about whether to SAH or not, it's about economics.

namechange

I don't need childcare nor have ever used it, paid or not. We didn't even take the free 15 hours.
I'm not angry nor resentful as I have no need to be, and very fortunate that none of the cuts/ changes that gov have announced will affect our family at all.
That doesn't stop me wanting fairness for others that follow, and nowhere have I said that childcare shouldn't be supported for those who wish to work.
It's seems fine to criticise a sahp who receives tc, but a wohp who does the same is fine because they are working, irrespective of whether the wohp is taking the same if not more than the sahp in a situation where neither are actually paying in more than the other.

Littleshorty
Don't forget the cleaners.

Narv
I asked you who you donated your cb to being as you don't hold with benefits. I would also like you to clarify that you wouldn't have received tax credits neither as this is clearly taking the piss. I'm sure you'd have not claimed or given them to a very good cause.
You hold me in such contempt for completing the forms and taking what was offered and for doing the best for my family.
As I said you have no idea about my family, you just like to bash people who you are obviously jealous of. Well in that case why don't you do the same.
Oh, and the argument of what would happen if we all decided to take this approach is immaterial as most women want to work apparently.

I believe the 15 hours pre school is universal and part of the education system, so can't see that as being means tested.

should

I think that the means testing itself would make it more expensive and difficult to administer.
Also we are talking a very short period of time - if the 3 year olds are rising 4 ie only one year in most cases.

I still cant get over a SAHM who has had so much assistance to do so being angry and resentful that WOHP might get a tiny amount of assistance
Is it jealousy that they might earn a decent wage ???
Don't they think their GP, teachers, nurses, midwives, shop workers, binmen or whatever to earn a living wage ??
Why the resentment ???
I don't get it ???

What about the 15 hours then should that be means tested? Or school? What if parents could afford private but use the free state system?same for nhs. This will give women choice. How can that be bad?
Exactly name change. Providing a service and also creating more demand for services, especially handbag makers and travel agents.

I don't think its helpful to suggest SAHM use the cost of CC as an excuse to SAH.

Its everyones choice as to what they do and their right.

Where is this attitude that WOHP are some how getting something for nothing ie a salary that they spend on holidays and handbags
They work in exchange for a salary, so provide a service in some shape or form that we all use.

Morethan I'm not jealous of you at all. Contempt is closer to what I feel. Maybe mixed with pity. I'd hate to have such limited horizons. Your 'little top up' not only comes from taxpayers (whom you seem to hold in contempt you are certainly taking the piss out of us) but it is also taking money away from people who genuinely need it. As I said - appalling attitude.

More than I said that because it's the only lreaon I can see why anyone would object to better outcomes for women and children

I don't think childcare costs are used as an excuse not to work. They are used as a reason why many people cant work. Big difference.

If someone wants to be a SAHP and has a partner willing and able financially to support that they why would they need an 'excuse' ? That family are exercising a personal choice.

Obviously not all sahp use childcare costs as an excuse not to work but it would be naive to say that some don't. Well those people won't have that excuse once this is rolled out.
I used tax credits to pay for childcare and probably got more money off the government than if I stayed at home and claimed income support. I didn't put anything 'back in the pot' but all that money was spent in the economy. And now I do pay tax because I've worked my way up instead of having 5 years at home

32

i know you aren't but I was answering your questions/ post.
It was somebody else who had made comments that assumed a sahm was using the cost of childcare as reason not to work.

Tax credits weren't a benefit as such until we got a new government. I think anything that gives you financial gain paid for by the tax payer is now assumed "a benefit", from gov pov

Someone up thread said that the abolition of higher rate tax relief on pensions would be used to pay for it

Not sure about that

But I do agree with 32s last post

I'm not vilifying anyone- I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to stop working and has a partner willing and able to support that choice.

As for means testing- if the 30 hours will pay for itself as the evidence suggests, then actually it's not really a 'benefit' as such- it's a strategy for strengthening the economy. The fact that childcare will be cheaper than it otherwise would be, well, given that UK childcare is the most expensive in Europe, I don't think that's any bad thing. As I said, who is to judge what's 'affordable'? Technically, childcare for me was 'affordable' because we could (and did) pay for it all out of our own pockets, but it took all my income, and that's a situation many people aren't prepared to tolerate. We hear it time and again on here- women saying theyre giving up work, often once dc2 arrives because they aren't any better off working. I don't begrudge a policy which gives these women choice. If they decide not to take up the 30 hours and stop working anyway, then again, they are exercising a choice

I may not have had any "what about your kids" comments but I've had plenty of "when are you going to get a job" comments

Or my personal favourites "when are you going to get a proper job" and "no wonder your husband has to work such long hours to support a lady of lesuire"

I wouldn't mind but that last comment keeps coming from a "friend" who works part time herself

Most women don't pay tax. Don't you find that worrying? We leave ourselves so exposed.

32

It's rubbish when it's assumed this is the case and remarks about not being able to use the cost of childcare as an excuse for not working.

I know there are lots of women who are prevented from working due to the cost of childcare and of course they should be supported.

The only comments I have made were those about means testing, which in times of austerity are necessary. Sahp's are no longer funded, welfare has/ will be cut further, the country can't afford to support lifestyle choices anymore. When it's a matter of lifestyle choice over necessity I think all benefits should be means tested, don't you?

But please don't encourage a situation where a sahm is vilified because they should be working as they have no excuse not to.

We fought long and hard for choice.

i have not read the thread. but have a question. why do they only do this if you have a 3-4 year old what about younger children. so that mums can go back to work

Morethan... Many women have been saying for a long time that the cost of childcare in the UK is what prevents them working. Women are saying that.
So this isn't about women coming out with 'rubbish against their own.'
And as for the implication that only women who give up work completely for years, and then possibly get a little p/t job to fit round school hours, have some sort of monopoly on mothering fulfilment is quite frankly bizarre.

I was a SAHM for around 18 months, and worked p/t for a couple of years and love every minute. I was also totally ready to step back into f/t work as soon as could- not because of any deficit in the maternal department, but because it's actually possible for women as well as men to be successful in the workplace and to be raising a family. Who'd a thought it eh?

Narv

You know nothing of my situation and have no idea how much tc we receive.
You're so up your own ass with jealousy of some great situation you imagine a sahp to be in it's laughable.

However, you are correct you do pay for me to sah, because my family live frugally and we can manage on one small wage and a little top up.
Maybe I should have worked, not paid any tax and let you foot my childcare bill with more tax credits. We could have had grande holidays, a couple of cars, a nice wardrobe, Sky TV, nice handbags etc. because that is what my earnings would have bought.
And I'm the one with the attitude problem.
Working as you can see, can cost the state a lot of money and you aren't always in a position to put any back in the pot.

most women who work don't pay tax . Maybe that's because their wages take such a hit when they have 5 years off!

In terms of 'high earners' my FTE including bonus is 45k ish, round here that is pretty good (I dont live in the SE) but with 2 children in nursery I was still working for about 20 quid a day (after tax)

Well yes, but it isn't about it being bliss, just necessity.

Of course, if you find a job you like and want to do it anyway, that's great.

I find it very sad that we live in such a time when women have more rights than ever, yet women are still coming out with such rubbish against their own.

Why should it be automatically assumed that a woman not in employment uses the cost of childcare as an excuse not to work.
Working for somebody else, even for money is not everyone's idea of bliss. Some women do actually choose to be a sahm, some really enjoy it.
they don't need to make excuses why they don't work it's the 21st Century, not 1950 ffs.

Agreed. Dh is the youngest of 4 boys born to a sahm. All wives/girlfriends of the various brothers work and are successful. I don't work at the moment as the kids are small, but when I did I earned as much as him. My mother wasn't a sahm on the whole, and none of my female relations were. I guess we all forge our own path.

True.

I don't think that's necessarily because of SAHMs though.

I can well believe it gets wearisome. I haven't always been a SAHM

Five acres it's the impact on boys that I'm concerned about, not the impact on girls. It would be nice if the women of the future - our daughters - werent constantly having to answer the question 'but what about your kids' from their male colleagues. Not, obviously, something that SAHM have to put up with. But believe me it gets wearisome after a while.