Childcare costs- someone talk me through the outrage

[Suzietwo]

Is it just me or does it seem a bit grabby of mothers to be getting cross about the change to child care rules?

I thought the rules were being changed to try and encourage people to work. Ie to give them more choice and be option generating aka A. Good. Thing.

But the stay at home mums voice in the media just sounds a bit self important.

Don't misunderstand me, I am entirely on favour of people and families making decisions which suit them. This isn't about that. It's about people being a bit....indulged? Make a choice, stick with it. The more choices which are available the better so if the gvnt can help (a different argument about whether they should) by offering money to assist people go to work, then fab. But don't demand it for making the choice to stay at home.

Wallison. I agre that the Gov needs to ensure properly qualified people are employed to look after children. A public funded system doesn't guarantee this though.

There are more people working in early years with degrees/post graduate degrees (Early Years Professionals) than there ever have been

Bleating? Nice.

Transferable tax allowances would be a massive change, not just to the principle of independent taxation but to the general tax take from personal taxation, not to mention driving behaviour that the government doesn't want to drive because one spouse being able to access the other's tax free and basic rate allowances when they are a HRT makes a lot more "second jobs" economically nonsensical.

Anotherplace - if you think that all the voluntary roles in society are done by SAHPs, you are very much mistaken.

I have a full time job, as does DH, and I run a Brownie unit with 24 girls. Of the 15 leaders in our district across the 3 sections, only 1 is a SAHM. ALL the rest of us work. I think you'll find that is the norm around the country.

Permanent, all our school governors bar one retired person work, our helpers at school work and i know the ladies who run a small beaver group locally work. If you ask for helpers at PTA events its mainy those that work that come forward. So we dont need to encourage people to stay home on the basis there would be no volunteers.

I'm pretty convinced we shouldn't be encouraging people to stay at home generally...

the sahm brigade have really been irritating about this one. If you want this subsidy then go and get a job and claim it

I think its about giving families more options. People see problems when they need to look for solutions. If you really want to work then childcare is not a barrier to this.

Honestly, can't believe there are people saying not having childcare to attend a fictional interview for a job they haven't even applied for is stopping them getting work

always the same probs.....childcare, husband works shifts, no family etc.....fact is these people don't want to work and want to stay home. I have no prob with this but its disingenous to pretend otherwise.

And the mothers that want to look after their young children instead of paying others to do it?

Or how about the vast number of young children that would hate childcare and who thrive and prefer being at home with a parent?

How about the high levels of stress,tiredness due to long days,less time to do homework,less time to play out or just be after school,less family time?

So basically no children should have a sahp,no parent should ever take a job that involves support from a sahp( who is going to do these jobs) and just because some parents don't want to be at home for their young children others shouldn't be helped to do so either?

Tis a sad,sad time we live in.

Squarepebbles- read the thread. No one* is saying all parents have^ to work. Quite the opposite: many of us have said endlessly that it's up to each family to decide for themselves. All we are saying is, it is totally unreasonable and uneconomic to give people money for their choice, or to rewrite tax laws for them.

As for the 'vast' number of children who 'would ' hate childcare (not sure how you know if these hypothetical children have never been!) - well I don't know about you but i tend to focus on my own children, and whether they are happy and thriving.

And this is where any reasonable discussion about economic policy breaks down because someone can't resist having a pop at WOHM .

Look, as a WOHM I don't spend my time in a state of angst over whether the children of my SAHM friends are happy, whether theyre socialising enough, how their language is progressing blah blah blah. Yet it seems some SAHM claim to know and about the feelings and development of hordes of children- including those they haven't even met- other mumsnetters children!!

You have to ask why that is. If you are really happy and secure in your choice then why niggle away at other peoples choices? Even if you absolutely cannot get you head round the fact that some mums want to carry on workiing, and that our children are perfectly happy and well adjusted, why not just accept it? Dont agonise over trying to understand- just accept that there are many ways to be a good parent, and ultimately that's what matters- being a good parent.

how would subsidised childcare help you sah with your children square pebble????

The SAHM brigade have really been irritating about this one. If you want this subsidy then go and get a job and claim it.. You sound like the trashy press with those kind of comments. As people have already pointed out there are a whole array of reasons why people are SAH; we are not a 'brigade' that think the same, act the same, live the same, just like those who work outside of the home. Secondly, why the assumption that every SAH person is a Mother. There are plenty of SAHDs at my DS's school, probably 30%. It is therefore definitely not the case that this is about some stereotypical 'brigade' of women who just want to sit at home on their arses watching 'Loose Women'. I and many other people are not stopped from returning to work because 'our men' are working shifts- what era do you live in? it's because we ourselves want one parent to be a full time carer for our children. My main motivation for not returning after ML was about caring for my 9 month old baby myself not about wanting to be at home. In my case we had a very small mortgage, outgoings were small as a result and if we stayed put in the flat we owned, rather than getting more room by buying a house, it was a hit we could afford to take for a couple of years. My point is it was nothing to do with staying at home and everything to do with being a ft carer of my son.

I think in fairness the poster who used the term SAHM brigade was referring to those who are calling for free childcare and changes to taxation to benefit them. It becomes quite clunky and cumbersome to have to define the group being written about each time!

Though I agree, that's the downside of acronyms, they tend to be a blunt tool to describe who we mean.

Can I just make it clear that when I have used the phrase 'some SAHM' I am referring only to those who are proposing they get the childcare help and want changes to taxation (and it is SAHM we've heard from in the media, not dads). I am very aware that this does not incoporate all SAHM, many of whom are content with their choice and do not expect free childcare just because some working parents get help.

well I've not heard any sahd s moaning about this...but I should have typed sahp...

Great, brill, glad you're enjoying what u do........as I said I have no probs with other peoples choices but do resent people making excuses for that choice and finding probs where there are none.

You sound like you have quite a few problems with anyone choosing to be SAH.

Yes what a radical idea ....parents wanting to look after their babies/very young children at home full time. All these people making excuses- what a disgrace!

Oh and do you actually know any SAHDs?

What a total non argument Goldenbear. People post saying 'live and let live; if you want to be a SAHP, fine; if you want to be a WOHP, fine'
And somehow you decipher from that, that these posters have issues with SAHP. Unbelievable!

I don't have any issue with people SAH if that's what they want. What I take issue with is when a minority of them want free childcare and a rewrite of tax rules.

And no, nothing radical about being a SAHP, just as there is nothing radical about being a WOHP. Horses for courses.

Reductions in eligibility for benefits is just leading one way IMO - elimination of them altogether. We will reach a point where only the disenfranchised will be eligible for child benefit, child tax credits and then it will be taken away from them enitirely with little objection as they will be the only ones fighting to keep it.

I was actually referring to Kidderminster Kate's response who was clearly being sarcastic with her remarks, 'Great, brill' bully BS stuff.

I haven't read anything from anyone on the page which indicates people have a problem with anyone choosing to be a SAHP. I think the issue is people wanting to get financial support from the benefits system and changing tax legislation etc. for choosing to SAH.

I still don't understand why some SAHP are complaining about childcare benfits. If you are at home, you don't need childcare support.

And I have a problem with these comments, *fact is these people don't want to work, they want to stay at home.' er no, I am working it just doesn't have any monetary value. My home didn't need me to look after it full time but my baby did. I take my role very seriously with the teaching and care I provide, I don't plonk them in front of the tv and hope for the best. All the SAHP I know are very proactive in that role.

That's what some people are worrying about. Personally I don't think it will come to that, I think it's about trying to restore welfare to its true purpose, because things have spiralled out of control, and the money simply isnt there. I worry more about the levels of debt we're passing on to our children and future generations

Anyway, the SAHM issue which has blown up in the media, including MN, has detracted from the issues and unfortunately has painted some SAHM in a bad light. Eg we've had on here SAHM with husbands earning in excess of 50k who are whining about losing CB, or complaining that if they were to apply for a hypothetical job, why haven't they got free childcare to attend the hypothetical interview.
And I make no apology for using the term 'whining' because these situations are a million miles away from the purpose of the welfare state and our predecessors would be squirming with embarrassment that this is what's become of the welfare state : that SAHM with high earning husbands are bemoaning their lot.

And to emphasise: I have nothing but respect for good parenting, whether it's done by SAHP or WOHP. That's not the issue here.

Personally, I don't care about childcare vouchers but I don't presume I can talk for all SAHP. My point was a broader one regarding ultimately where this is going to end.

I've only glanced through this LittleChickpea and the OP's most recent comment

am pretty convinced we shouldn't be encouraging people to stay at home generally...

indicates to me that the OP does indeed have a problem with people SAH.

I don't think she's alone either despite initial claims from some that 'we should all do what works for us', when it comes down to supporting peoples choices people are less keen (on supporting SAHP).

That was in reply to goldenbears worry about benefits disappearing

And you really don't need to justify your decision- it wouldn't occur to me for a moment to assume youre plonking your child by the tv. Any more that I would assume that for any other child.

I remember that post from littlechick, wasn't it talking in an economic context though? That there shouldn't be financial incentive to stay at home? That's very different to opposing peoples choice.