New childcare tax break to be announced by the Government today - what do you think?

It's like calling a dustbin man a refuse collector surely. Stay at home mother - 4 long words which still root women in house and home same as housewife. I don't see the different except one is a silly new euphemism for those whose feelings seem to get so hurt so easily. Stay at home parent may be better as gender neutral. I can understand why "non working parent" might annoy fathers and mothers who don't work but look after under 5s and do all the cleaning because it is pretty hard work when they are young if you have no help and particularly if you have 3 under 5 as we did at one point.

We certainly won't call them "mum" (a) because many of us cringe at thje word mum - a class thing (let us not exclude those who are mummies from mumsnet - there must be a place for all classes to feel comfortable here (b) because a woman who works is believe it or not a mother. In fact some of us have done more childcare than most housewives with under 5s. I will have done if you add up the hours from 28 years ago when child 1 was born. I have done more coal face hour by hour child care than most housewives on here just spread over nearly 3 decades.

Anyway the tax breaks will probably be minimal as the Government has no money so I ould not hold our breath for them. They may help those of us who hav e never qualified for a childcare voucher because we are self employed though so that could be of benefit although I expect they will put upper income limits on these too as they are a party which wants to damage enterprise and in effect say to hard workers who do well - awful you, we don't want you in the UK, we only want low earners who pay no tax. If they carry on like this when the last tax payer leaves the country and switches off the light the 50% who are net claimants will find they have nothing from which to claim but at least they won't be jealous of those who are richer, because the richer will all be gone.

Stix.

Please accept my apology, I got you all wrong. Have re read and it must have been the drugs. I am just getting over flu and was well dosed up.

Viv, I think housewife got swapped for SAHM as more women carried on working after marriage (not allowed for eg my grandmother) but stopped when they became mothers.

I expect SAHM will fade over time too as more people work flexibly throughout to combine childcare and work.

olgaga - you would call her a mum. Yes, she is a mum. Just like the one who works. She brings up her own children. Just like the one who works.

You find the term housewife pejorative, I find the implications in your post about working mothers pretty insulting.

I can't see why people are so up in arms about the term housewife. It was in use for years and nobody was bothered. But now we aren't allowed to say it. And must say SAHM or some other term. Well that is fair enough. But a SAHM does the same thing as a Housewife used to do. And that's a fact.

Xenia maybe it's just your age but frankly "housewife" is not a term I would ever use to describe any woman who chooses to bring up her own children. I'ts rather pejorative, can't you appreciate that?

I would call her a mum.

There should be that choice that he can say I want 4 years at home so get back to full time work.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing to stop a man saying that today!

Oh, and I should add that I am perfectly happy for a couple to decide that one of them stays home. I think they should be taxed as a single unit, if they so choose. It works this way in the US. You put your income together and file jointly. Then you mark your dependant and get an bit of a rebate (or whatever it is called) for each. And you have the choice of whether to file separately or individually.

What is the objection? Women on here all the time talk about the damage done by people who contract out their children,, who do not "vring them up" because they are working. There aer about 1000 comments against working mothers to one which might suggest as I do that a working mother is better for a child.

I is not factually wrong to call the recent measures measures against housewives and to approve of working parents is not a sin or a mumsnet insult or bad conduct. It is just a different view point give we are working hard to get women into positions of power and not at home, many of us. We all also lobby to get many more men in the home. There should be that choice that he can say I want 4 years at home so get back to full time work.

Indeed today's news is full of the huge rise in full time working mothers of children under 5 and good luck to them . Perhaps the recession will have unintended good consequences just as WWII did when women got out and enjoyed work and children thrived in day nurseries provided by the state. Interesting times.

Most reform whether it's the vote for women or rights to work sadly is usually economically driven by the state rather than being an issue of moral rights. To get the economy moving again you need lots of hard working tax payers and tax paid.

morethanpotatoprints,

Re: "how wrong it is for 2 parents working to expect other tax payers to pay for their childcare"

How do you work out that working parents are asking other parents to fund their childcare? I have been arguing for the income earned by working parents not to be taxed so that they will be able to use it on their childcare. But, it is still money those parents earned; and not money from someone else's hard work.

I just want a tax break to I can spend my own (untaxed) income on my own childcare before the government creams the tax off what is left in my pot. It seems only fair that my childcare, an expense incurred for the sole purpose of me (and DH) going to work, should be subtracted from my net income before my tax obligations are calculated.

lljk yes, I am surprised that posts approving of 'measures against housewives' are approved. Like you say, if another poster said measures should be taken against working mothers there would be an outcry. Feminism is about choice people! Choice to be a SAHM or a working mum.

But they have passed a bill capping the welfair bill to 1% for the next 3 years?

So if you have jsa or income support it will stay the same for the next three years?

Im a sahm and recieve ctc that is paying for my share of costs so i think tax payers are paying for my life chpice as i could not afford to stay home without it!

I think tax payers should help with childcare costs.

Stix.

Maybe sahps shouldn't be paid to sah, but surely you can see how wrong it is for 2 parents working to expect other tax payers to pay for their childcare. You can't have different rules for different people.
Nobody should expect others to fund their lifestyle choice , unless of course they need welfare which really should not be cut.

ps: I do not understand how half of the things Xenia posts are allowed to stand. She expresses approval of "measures against housewives". If I said that I would like the government to take measures against working wives, would anybody on MN let that go? I bet MNHQ would delete it for a start.

But (cough, ahem) other countries encourage transferable tax allowances between spouses, and/or tax breaks for each child. UK does not have those things. ARRRGH.

and no, very few countries offer anything like universal CB.

not quite right about the FSM, mam29, the pupil premium went up from £400 ish last year to £600 in the current year, £900 next year, and the criteria for schools getting that money have been changed so that ifa child would have qualified for FSM at any time in the past 6 years, the PP can be claimed. That is how a HT explained it recently to me anyway, at a school where 47% are on FSM.

yes but they are hitting the sahm /housewife very harshly

some will lose

child benefit
now they on about scrapping vouchers.
I suspect the 2000 new one only be availible for people in work or very low income.

people already lost tax credits last year.
not many kids get free school meals

everythings going up, wages are not.

To me im baffled what they doing as they were already behind in female supported.

Labour would have done better if yvette coooper was leaer as least they look like they offer something different.

Does every other country give universil child benefit?

Cleggs wise though does work full time www.dechert.com/miriam_gonzalez/
Cameron's see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8700059/Samantha-Cameron-pushes-the-envelope-at-Smythson.html

It is not surprising they are taking a lot of measures against housewives and obviously many feminists are very pleased.

Mosman, she started working two days per week after getting pregnant with her fourth child and after her husband took a more demanding role. If it was some kind of political statement to woo "traditionalist" votes,, I'd expect it to have happened when he became leader of the opposition.

Want2bsupermum,

If raising one's own children is be treated as paid employment, who is the employer? Surely raising those children is ultimately the parents responsibility; and therefore it seems to reason they are the employer. So, should SAHPs pay themselves and then deduct the usual enployer and employee taxes?

Not sure your plan is going to benefit SAHP.

Surely you are not suggesting that people paying to raise their own children should also pay for yours?

I'm not sure how "part time consultancy" equates to "doesn't physically get her arse to work". Want to elaborate?

She changed her role at work because she was having another baby, as I recall.

Part time consultancy is almost more insulting actually. Doesn't physically get her arse to work but is paid a nice sum for bugger all. Nice work if you can get it.

Xenia, that is an interesting letter, thanks. I'm going to ponder on taxable capacity.

Mosman, no she didn't. She moved to a part-time consultancy role.

David Cameron's wife gave up work when he took office, probably to set an example to all of us about standing by your man and washing his socks.