To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.

[catinboots]

Pleaseeee??

I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.

Eh?

Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?

Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..

Mme.

I am sahm of over 20 years out of choice and have never used childcare and only had 1x 15 hours free pre school place. As one who doesn't believe in childcare myself, even I think your above scenario absolutely stinks.
I just hope it doesn't take away the opportunity for too many women to have a choice whether to work or not.

Why doesn't the woman on 10k get the vouchers, as opposed to high earning couple? I was under the impression that whether or not you get vouchers depends on whether your employer runs the scheme, rather than how much you earn. Do you mean because she gets tax credits which pay 70% of the childcare costs anyway? In which case it's not really a like for like comparison

You must (both) earn at least £10k to get the vouchers.

Wouldn't a couple both working and earning under 10k be entitled to other top ups though? I don't believe at that level of pay you would be paying 100% of the childcare costs for all your children

I imagine it depends what the other partner is earning Janey (the one earning over 10k).

I am that single parent working part-time and not earning very much, and what this govt is doing fucking terrifies me. At the moment I get tax credits, although that has already been cut - the 70% has gone down to 60%, and I never got the 70% anyway (really you only get that if you're working 30+ hours and earning minimum wage). Soon it will move onto Universal Credit, and everything I have read about this means that me and anyone else in my situation will be shafted, because the payment will be lower and also I will have to attend a jobcentre every two weeks to prove I am looking for more work to supplement my earnings.

So while I have sympathy with stay-at-home parents who won't get their childcare paid for (why would you need it?) and not getting validation from the state (would be nice I'm sure but hardly an essential), as a working parent, the only parent my son has, and the only wage-earner in my household about to not get childcare paid for, when what I earn doesn't cover it, I am fucking shitting myself. I also don't see why I shouldn't get help with childcare costs when someone who earns 15 times more than I do will get help with their childcare costs.

In fact, isn't it the case that someone with a household income 30x higher than mine will get help with childcare costs, while I won't? Fuck validation etc - how the fuck will we fucking eat?

fair point partridge.

wallinson yes I agree that is pretty disgraceful. surely those earning low wages need help more than anyone else.

I think any policy should aim to make it affordable to go out to work if you choose to (or need to!). helping those who choose to / need to work does not mean they are punishing those who don't though.

On Sunday, the Resolution Foundation thinktank reveals analysis showing that the new childcare support is heavily weighted in favour of better-off families. It has found that only 160,000 families in the bottom 40% of the income distribution will qualify for help, compared to 1.7 million in the top 40% ? largely because those earning under £10,000 are not eligible for help.

The government has put an additional £200m into universal credit to help the less well-off, but Vidhya Alakeson, deputy chief executive of the foundation, said too many of the working poor had been excluded: "This week the government announced new plans to reduce the burden of childcare costs on families. As part of that, it is very welcome that some families receiving universal credit will in the future see their childcare costs halved. But it is wrong for the new proposal to exclude many of the poorest working families who struggle greatly with the cost of childcare.

"As part of the government's forthcoming consultation, it is crucial that additional support is made available to families where a parent is working part-time and not earning enough to pay income tax."

im currently sahm but would like to go part time.

but any part nmw job would be under 10k a year.

because husbands over 32k gross we dont get tax credits.

we have 3kids 2preschoolers.

yes i have said on my other thread its perverse that helps coupples on 199-300k and does not help the low earners or reward everyone for work.

This government are only interested in preserving wealth (tax breaks for the rich) and not redistributing it. Tis the Tory way. They're not called the nasty party for nothing. I'm old enough to remember how they fucked over the country last time (not that you have to be old, you just need to visit the Welsh valleys, or old East Midland mining towns to see that - they never recovered).

They're doing it again. Just faster and it's not just the working classes getting screwed over. "Wealthy" in their eyes is now £300k a year. The rest of us are skivers and just need to work harder...

It's all bullshit anyway, this aspiration nation crap. How can you have a nation of aspiring people when you are presiding over a low-wage economy? It's all very well to tell people to aspire but what are they aspiring towards? A minimum wage zero hours contract?

better opportunities for their DCs, made possible though education

You can have all the education you like, but in a low-wage economy with high costs of living where there is little protection for workers you will still struggle to keep a roof over your family's heads and food on the table.

Forty years ago, someone who left school at 16 working in a factory could provide for their family without state help. Ok so they might not have had the advantage of a university education, but at least they weren't living in a country where the average home costs 7x the average wage.

well, the UK got rich exploiting the world, now the flow of cash out of the UK.

and I doubt any govt can change that. but I don't believe Ms&MrAverage are a helpless as you do.

Oh really? And is that because education is the answer to everything? Try telling that to graduates who will leave uni £50k in debt to go and work in a call centre while paying £500 pm for a room in a shared house.

they would not have to pay of the debt until their earnings rose.

And what course did they do, what grades did they get etc.

education is the answer, but that does not mean everyone needs a degree in photography or media studies.

Media studies is actually quite a useful and well-regarded degree. And at least it teaches people how to do things like punctuate and the difference between 'of' and 'off', both of which appear to have passed you by.

The expansion of higher education has led to things like law and forensic psychology and a whole host of other 'difficult' subjects producing far more graduates than there are jobs in the field. There is no point in having a nation of graduates coupled with a proliference of low paid service sector jobs, which is what is happening the UK now. All that it means is that you need a university degree in order to become an office junior. Fuck that.

Wallison 'of' and 'off', both of which appear to have passed you by

this is only Talk on MN not The Times! you are lucky if you get an 'o' and a number of 'f's.

I agree that we are not producing the right skills and qualifications. we are short of engineers and many technical skills which is bad for the economy.

The worst thing for the economy is the decline in manufacturing though - look at Germany as an example of how to get thing right. We aren't going to make any great shakes by churning out a generation of people with degrees who are working as fucking barristas.

Labour wanted everyone to go to university. So of course there are tons of graduates in shit jobs, it's not rocket science

I agree 100%. Germany values all sorts of skills.

I wrote that to wallision but agree with all new as well.

people with degrees who are working as fucking barrista is the consequence of labours policies.

So we all agree then!

I must admit I am mystified by the labour (and now tory) policy of giving degrees to everyone - did they really think that doing so would result in more graduate-calibre jobs magically becoming available, despite paying no heed to the terminal decline of UK industry?

And now because so many people are doing degrees, they are costing a fortune. Not sure what was wrong with limiting access to the most academically able and funding it

I don't see what was wrong with that either. It would be a different story if there were a wealth of jobs out there that required higher skills, but all that has happened is that employers are now requiring even applicants for entry-level positions to have a degree, despite the fact that the job could easily be done by a school-leaver. So young people are shafted - in order to get a job even as mundane as typing out someone else's letters for a living, you need to work your arse off for a degree that you'll never use again that costs the equivalent of 5 year's worth of full-time work.