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.

What concerns me more than the SAH issue, is the fact that families with a joint income of up to £300k will be able to claim this tax break 'benefit'.

Families where one partner earns less that £10k wont be able to claim it.

So low paid women families, the ones really struggling to juggle jobs/children/hours cut don't get it.

Overall the changes are helping more working people, that's the crux.
And as has been said endlessly, dual earners have the massive cost of childcare which SAHP don't, therefore their needs are different.

Yes I agree, the OP seemed to already have made her mind up. In fact I'm deeply suspicious of 'New' posters bringing up these topics casually but with a hint of bias, coincidentally, towards the political agenda of the day.

janey if it was really about

trying to restore welfare to its true purpose

Would it really be available to families where both earn up to £150k?

Exactly.

The changes may well be helping more high earning working people.

Funny kind of benefit that where the lowest paid aren't entitled to it.

I didn't say I did agree with it being available for dual earners up to 150k each. Personally I would want the cut off to be lower. Having said that, I imagine a couple both earning that amount would be looking at very expensive nanny- type childcare. Seeing as we've seen quite a few SAHM with high earning husbands saying they need to be home full time to facilitate their husbands career, it's fair to say that when a couple are both earning at that level they need a high degree of support for home and children. You also have to remember that however wrong it may seem that such a couple get help, it's in all our interests that we have (a small minority) of couples prepared to work at that level, because they pay a hell of a lot into the public coffers. If they turned round and said 'sod it, one of us will give up work and stay at home, it would actually be detrimental to the economy. So there's a danger of people cutting off their nose to spite their face here. I imagine there are very very few couples who both earn at that level, relative to the population as a whole, and frankly good luck to them, I wouldn't want that pressure so I'm not going to sit and be an armchair critic of them.

MmeThenardier I have no issue or problem with people choosing to SAH. If it's the right choice for their families then brilliant, go for it. But, yes I do have an issue with people expecting the Gov to found this lifestyle choice. Where in all this does parental responsibility to financially support our own DC come into it? Why are some people expecting others to get increased tax levels to pay for their choice?

The size of my family is and will be dependant on DF and I's financial circumstances because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure we financially support our family. Its not the states responsibility. Anyone including what additional financial income they may be able to get via the benefit system when planning or having a family would be fool hardy. I have said it before but it amounts to giving yourself a pay rise which can never be guaranteed.

The benefit system should be there to support those in most need and as a safety net for those that find themselves in a really bad place because of unforeseen circumstances.

I am utterly gobsmacked by some of the attitudes of SAHP on here (and in rl TBH). This is a tax break if you don't pay tax, you can't get a tax break simples. As for the idea you should get childcare to fill in application forms or attend interviews the mind boggles.

If a SAHP wants to reenter the workforce then the first thing they have absolutely got to have is the support of their WOHP

. Can these WOHP not look after their own dcs for a few hours (yes possibly at the weekend or in the evening) so the SAHP can fill in application which will presumably benefit the whole family ? Similarly interview dates are normally published fairly well in advance. I would have a v. poor opinion of anyone who would put themselves out to allow their life partner to attend an interview. These attitudes reinforce the sexist views that childcare is women's problem and that men don't have to concern themselves with it as long as they bring home the bacon.

At the end of the day, before I throw criticism at a hypothetical couple each earning 150k, I'd ask myself 'do I want to trade places?'
The answer is no. I wouldn't want that level of pressure. We've heard from lots of women with husbands who earn far less, who still claim that they cannot work because their husbands job is so demanding. So hats off to any couple who can manage that.

Would not put themselves out obvs.

MmeThernardier, if they're earning under 10k then they will already be having their childcare paid for through tax credits.

It's not criticising the people who are earning £150k though - it's criticising the govt for allowing public money to go to them in the form of a state benefit. At a time when there are swingeing cuts being made across the board that will literally make some people homeless, break up families, cause increased levels of personal debt and so on, it's madness.

But bridgetbidet, that tax credit money has already been cut from 70% to 60%, and the full 70% was never available to people earning less than £10k anyway. Also, universal credit will see it cut still more. So people who earn less than £10k will be getting less financial help, while people who earn thirty times more than them will be getting more financial help. Funny kind of welfare system, don't you think?

And you think that is where we're at and where we are heading with the 'benefits system' do you- available to the most in need? Child benefit is going to be cut until the only people eligible for it will be those without a political voice, the socially excluded. Those who won't be loud enough in their protests when it is cut altogether. Ditto child tax credits.

Littlechick having children and working is also a lifestyle choice.

It is well known how much childcare costs so perhaps it could be argued that wp should save before having dc.The amount of people not having children at all is rising,if we're going to waste money on tax breaks then perhaps those without children at all should be entitled to it.

The fact is many mothers and children are miserable at being separated and should be helped.Any mother who chooses to give up work hasn't taken the decision lightly.Being forced into work when your heart is breaking,your child miserable and conditioned from babyhood to just getting on with it is wrong.

Jesus 10 hours of childcare a day in shite buildings with limited attention,zero school holidays and upset seriously the op thinks all mothers should be forced into accepting this for their dc?

Sorry a life like that and missing my dc's early years entirely was not why I had children- so shoot,belittle and patronise me.

I wouldn't choose what you describe for my children either square pebbles. I've ensured that they aren't stuck in shite buildings 10 hours a day getting zero attention and no fun . In fact I don't know any WOHP who opts for that lifestyle!
It really doesn't further any debate to just paint a horrible picture of some hypothetical day orphanage nursery. I mean, what's the point? I don't criticise what you do at home with your children, so why try to belittle how WOHP raise their children? My children are perfectly happy and well adjusted. As I'm sure yours are.

Sahp and choosing to be a sahp is criticised.

Blindly ignoring the fact that what I posted is reality for many is wrong,utterly,utterly wrong.

The fact is babies and toddlers want their parents,security and familiarity.Being bundled out at all hours,spending hours institutionalised,little fresh air,little home comforts such as their own squishy sofa,having very little time with their family or to relax and do what they hell they want without other tiny people to compete against,zero down time,zero time to do homework properly,zero time to play freely with their own toys will make many miserable.Yes many will get used to it eventually but many won't and even those that do really we should be forcing that on all families?

Why?

I think not.

It isn't running down wp it's looking at what is best for all children and helping all parents.Ignoring the obvious to make a section of society feel better about their choices is below the belt and not in any child's best interest.

littlechick i completely agree with this
The benefit system should be there to support those in most need and as a safety net for those that find themselves in a really bad place because of unforeseen circumstances

which is why I find it surprising that low earners don't get this benefit and couples that earn £150K each do.

I have no idea how many people this applies to but I presume two GP's could clear this amount, or close to so its certainly not going to be that unusual. TBH I don't care how few people it is I don't think two very high earners should be eligible for benefits. Presumably the government doesn't either as they removed CB for those on over £60k.

And no, I have no criticism of these high earners either, well done to them.

So as I think wish was saying this is in fact a tax break, not a benefit. It is not really to help people back into work. Otherwise it would be aimed at low paid workers, those studying, volunteering, doing work experience.

Sounds like you're wrong about the childcare being paid bridget and the low paid are being screwed every step of the way.

And let's not forget the reality for most children isn't top notch childcare,nannies,private schools,tuition,music holidays,expensive holidays to pick up the pieces but grind and a whole different reality.

Wish

Just out of interest who do you think should look after a child when their sahp is attending an interview. Are they to take the child? Will companies provide a creche.
I don't want to work but if I did I don't know what I would do if I was offered an interview. I'm sure I'm not on my own here.

More an interview I could get cover for but retraining,volunteering,studying,research all things needed if you've done the best for your individual children an taken time out not a hope in hell.

Squarepebbles yes having children and working is a lifestyle choice and it's a lifestyle choice I have chosen. And our children are happy, very well adjusted and I believe it has helped them develop their social and communication skills much more than if I had modicodled them. Not saying that children of SAHP don't develop these skills in the same way before I start getting lambasted for it. Its my opinion on my DC. And yes childcare costs are expensive and yes we did consider this before starting a family. We made sure we could afford it without Gov support. If you read some of the earlier posts you will see that I have acknowledge this already. The difference with tax breaks for WOHP and SAHP is the WOHP are still contributing financially to the UKs crippled economy so yes the Gov should support them because they need childcare, particularly those on low incomes. SAHP do not need childcare because they are at home providing the childcare.

People need to be responsible for the decisions they make. If you choose to be a SAHP then fine but people should make sure they can afford to do it and not rely on the benefit system. No one is been forced back to work. If people want to SAH then go for it, SAH just don't expect society to pay you for the pleasure.

And actually those people that don't have children and work, paying just as much tax as the rest of us should get some sort of break but they are the unheard voice in all this. Unfortunately because the country is in such a state they will be the last to ever get any sort of break. They really do have the hard end of the stick.

Square,

Sorry, I didn't want to belittle all the other times a sahp might need childcare, I just thought of interviews as this makes me mad on so many peoples behalf.
My friend a sp does not get much notice when there is an interview. Her parents live abroad and her dd does not attend childcare. I would help when I could but depending when they are I may not be available either.

I totally agree with you post about reasons for having children.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do now square pebbles. Guilt trip WOHP so that they feel bad about their life? (even though their children are perfectly happy and well adjusted and haven't simply 'got used to' some substandard level of care?
Do you want to make WOHP feel so bad that they 'see the light', and give up work? Is that what you need to make you feel secure about your choice?

I just think its really odd that anyone who is happy with their own choice would feel the need to belittle others how you do. I repeat- I wouldn't dream of criticising a SAHM for what she's doing or not doing in her daily routine. How strange that someone who is a SAHM feels able to criticise the upbringing of millions of children she doesn't even know!