Angry another attack on sahm mum!

[mam29]

I was worried about new childcare arrangements and its got high limit earn up to 150k but both parents have to be working.

Im guessing from this article the current childcare voucher scheme being phased out

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21833929

where exactly are these term time jobs and cheap flexible childcare.

where are all these jobs that dont seem to require person to be fully flexible.

had 1st in 2006 went back full time when she was one in 2007.
fulltime place 52weeks nursery was 9000 a year you can claim relief up to 6k.

used vouchers

quit work after no 2 used vouchers for preschool education who had reduced to 1day a week doing nursery.

child no 2 started 1day a week from 18months and nursery been really good for her development. its £40 a day so 160 on 4week month.

husband used couchers as he works fulltime saves us a little.

child 2 now gets 15hour funding which helps.

was hoping to start child no 3 and use childcare vouchers now looks like cant do that and might have to wait until fnding term after 3rd birthday which think is bit late.

To make matters worse child no 2 has september birthday so missed this sept school year by 16days so have year extra paying childcare.

we lucky we dident lose child benefit as at moment we below 50k
we lost £10 a week childcare tax credits last april.

feel sorry for sahm mum whos husnand earns over 50k loses cb and now childcare vouchers yet they say preschool education is important and good for educational outcomes.

we very much feeling squeezed middle tonight as we just about get by each month as we privatly rent too.

[Permanentlyexhausted]

Yes, what Ceeveebee said. The table on the HMRC website shows earnings over and above the tax free limit.

[mam29]

according to this you do its inland revenue site and higher rate tax reduces each year so more and more people are dragged into paying higher rate tax.

www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

32k from 2013.

I just disgree with changes in voucher syste.

currently the sytem means basic rate tax payers get more than higher rate.

the new system does not mean test and allows duell income couples to gain.

I also disgree with way child benefit changes been implemented.

why is childcare based on 2incomes
child benefit just 1?

its the unfairness of it.

Its not really about me its the injustice of the whole system.

people on 150k get 5%saving in april.

why shouldent if 1parent works get childcare vouchers they capped at 243 per person so at most worth £80 a month

for 1parent to study
get a break as not everyone has family.
based on childs needs.
oarent does voluntary work.

i volunteer as breasfeeding peer supporter at clinc 4hours a month this involves training to become one.

I was on pta that took few hours per month meetings, lot of work around events,

Im on preschool comittee as treasuer that takes a couple hours each week meeting events ect.

so much for big soceity eh not heard word about that recently.

[mam29]

are forgot to do link

www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Everyone who earns more than 10k gets to earn 10k free of tax. This is not just a perk of the higher rate tax payer. As a SAHM I don't need child care. Acouple earning 50k between them are better off than a single income income family earning 50k as they pay less tax. I can gladly forfeit our child benefit. It is £200 a month, i.e. a lot of money to lose. There is no consideration in this policy of the number of children in a family. If George Osborne announced tomorrow that he was going to remove CB from families with more than 2 children, there would be uproar on here. However, it seems to be OK to just take it away from a higher rate tax paying family, despite the fact that they might have 5 kids. I'm sorry, but no one will ever convince me that this policy is fair.

[sweetkitty]

I agree with everything ihategeorgeosbourne has said (again)

I am a SAHM of 4 DC, my DP is a HRT, we have lost child benefit, this is £242 per month, £3000 a year or 5K a year before tax. It's a lot of money to lose in one hit so to speak.

As everyone else has said, my neighbours next door with one child can earn 100K and still receive CB and pay a lot less tax than my DP does. And that child can be a teenager so they probably don't even pay for formal childcare.

However, I agree that SAHMs do not need childcare, I chose to be at home I don't then expect the government to subsidise children for my under 3s. I do know a few SAHMs who pit their DC into nursery for a break though.

I want to return to work, I want to retrain as a teacher but at the moment I cannot see how this would work. No family support and a DP who works long hours. I would need childcare whilst at college for 9 months, I guess under theses new rules I wouldn't be entitled to any help. In Scotland you are guaranteed a FT post for one year so childcare for that then your on your own, no jobs really all supply work, sporadic and poorly paid. You can be phoned up that morning for work that day but how can you sort childcare for that?

With a job outside term time then you have holidays to worry about if you even got a job

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Sorry meant to say, I cannot gladly forfeit our child benefit

[shesariver]

Im sorry I find your posts quite hard to follow so you may have answered this or not - but why should a SAHM have paid childcare - you dont need it!

[Permanentlyexhausted]

Yes, Mam29 - that's the site I looked at as well. But those amounts in that table are what you earn over and above the tax free allowance of 9440 (or whatever it is). So you don't pay 40% tax until your total earnings are around £42K.

[sweetkitty]

Watch it ihategeorgeosbourne we will be told we chose to have loads of DC and we shouldn't have had them if we can't provide for them

If this CB cut had been softened with a transferable personal allowance from a non working parent to a working parent it might have been easier to take although that would not help single parents.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

The sad thing is, that this government want to turn us all into a nation of debt slaves. They believe that bringing up children does not benefit the economy directly. However, having two people per family slaving their guts out to pay for an over-priced show box for 25 years seems to be their ultimate aim. After all, it pays their wages.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Sorry, should read shoe box, although I guess show box works too!

[frazzled74]

sorry yes i hadnt thought of the £10,00 each tax free so can see that the working couple will have more money in some borderline cases. We all look at things from our own perspective, mine being that ,dh and i both work full time to earn a combined 49,000, we can not increase our income , a family with one higher earner still has the option of the second parent going out to work to increase theirs. Dont get me wrong, i am not against SAHM at all,and i think its a shame that it is now a luxury and often not a viable choice for many familys.

[sweetkitty]

Ihategeorgeosbourne - are you my twin ?

Next they'll be wanting children to leave school at 10 so they can work also, the skiving freeloaders, they aren't paying tax after all?

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Quite possibly sweetkitty

I really don't trust them at all sweetkitty. I'm waiting for the announcement that any family with a higher rate tax payer will have to pay for their own children's education. After all, it's only fair!

[sweetkitty]

You could be right you know.

You would think they would be nicer to HRTs a fair old whack off them in tax, oh thy do once your in their millionaire gang

[SneezingwakestheJesus]

Just wanted to point out to OP, although its quite late in the thread now, that the 2 year old funding is not for the low income or unemployed parents to get childcare but for the children of some of those low income or unemployed parents who aren't getting the interaction or socialisation that they need to get some sort of interaction. You don't automatically qualify for it if you are unemployed or low income either. There are guidelines to follow and someone (eg health visitor, social worker) would need to assess the situation and refer the family/child to see if they tick the boxes to get the hours. This could be children of parents with drug problems, mental health issues, single parents who have no family support. Some of these children might never see another child or have regular meals or have any toys or books. Some children in the city I lived in start school not knowing their own name. That's how little interaction they get. I am so sick of entitled people begrudging children who could be having a pretty shitty life from having their 15 hours a week just because their own children don't get the 15 hours so they don't get 15 hours of "free childcare".

[SneezingwakestheJesus]

Whoops massive block of text!

[mam29]

Sneezing waking jesus.

I support the 2year old funding

Im can see benefits.

I worked in some very deprived areas seen problems at 1st hand

I grew up in single parent family not much interaction.

I do think 2year old funding for all be faireras think kids benefit from early years education I dont exactly see preschool as childcare as cant work within 3hours unless self employed.

I know many mums all backgrounds who find some toddler groups hard to attend as cliquey. kids wrong ages ect.

[SneezingwakestheJesus]

I was mainly wanting to correct you based on:

But because hubby earns too much we not eligible under childcare element of tax credits either we stuck in the middle so the very high duel income couple get help and the low incoe or unemployed couple get benefits, subsidised childcare and free 2year old places.

The low income or unemployed couple doesn't necessarily get a free 2 year old place, only some children of said couples do if they fit any of the guidelines. Its not an automatic thing for being unemployed.

You are right when you say it would be more fair for everyone to have it because it does benefit children but as that would cost so much money, only the children who need it most can have it. They use income (low/unemployed) to narrow down the pool of people who can apply for it as statistically those children are the most deprived and in need of it.

Mums from other backgrounds may struggle with toddler groups and not attend them but its highly likely that their children will interact with other people in some way during the week. Like going to the shops, popping to the park, seeing family, going for a walk and passing people in the streets. Some young children won't leave the house so won't know other people exist. That's the children that need the funding.

[kungfupannda]

The bottom line is that the country doesn't have enough money to pay for everything that we'd all like to see happen in an ideal world.

As far as I can see from that link, families with a SAHP will still get their 15 free hours at three, just as they do now. There's no point saying "oh well we should all get free hours at 2 because that would be better for everyone." There are lots of things that would be better for everyone, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for them.

Free childcare for 2 year-olds would be unworkable because it would cost way too much. 2 year-olds would be in nursery, not pre-school, with different childcare ratios and costs. There wouldn't be enough spaces at existing nurseries in some areas. It would be completely unmanageable.

Again, extra free childcare would be lovely. There are times when I would cut my right arm off for three hours to go round the supermarket without small children in tow, or have a GP appointment without having to take the kids. But it absolutely cannot be a priority for government spending.

[scottishmummy]

You're housewife you don't work!you're not being attacked you do your own childcare since not doing owt else
You already are entitled to 15hr free childcare when eligible
Frankly You have no basis for complaint,you're not juggling work and childcare

[FasterStronger]

mam29 - you are picking specific examples the argue an imaginary couple get treated better then you. do you think there are many couples earning 49k each? There are many households worse off than your so get it in perspective.

and i think you are overestimating the contribution to the common good of households like yours.

so lets look at 2 two income household, both on average incomes (many households like this) Family 1

Family 2 50k seems to be a fairly standard income for a one earner and SAHP on MN.

Family 3 the dual income 150k each.

Family 1 each pay 6kpa in tax so 12k total
Family 2 one person pays 14k in tax so 14k total
Family 3 each pay 59kpa in tax so 118k total

Family 1 only pay 2k pa less than family 2 but childcare will cost them far more than that.
Family 2 will get NI paid for the SAHP by Ms&Mr Taxpayer, so she can claim a pension later.
Family 3 will get a small amount back but they already contribute 9 times more than Family 1 or 2. they are also likely to employ a nanny who will also pay NI & tax.

so I dont think Family 2 have such as terrible deal as you make out.

[crashdoll]

I am so sick of entitled people begrudging children who could be having a pretty shitty life from having their 15 hours a week just because their own children don't get the 15 hours so they don't get 15 hours of "free childcare".

I just wanted to repeat this because it's how I feel too.

[frazzled74]

to be honest, anyone with a household income of £50,000 shouldn't have too much to moan about (myself included, and i know that some people have large mortgages/rents etc.) I have friends who struggle on minimum wage jobs, work really hard and even with top ups of tax credits , dont earn nearly that much.

[FasterStronger]

fraz to be honest, anyone with a household income of £50,000 shouldn't have too much to moan

Yes. thats the deal of being a high earner in the UK: you pay more tax and don't get lots out...because someone needs to pay for govt services and it cannot be those on low incomes.