Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Childcare costs- someone talk me through the outrage

446 replies

Suzietwo · 31/03/2013 15:00

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.

OP posts:
Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 22:36

Labour,not being funny but they're not exactly the party of policies full stop at the moment.

We'll just have to listen nearer the time,I wouldn't write Ukip off just yet though.

Wallison · 31/03/2013 22:37

So you do want money then, kazooblue?

HappyMummyOfOne · 31/03/2013 22:41

So its only women that want to not work. The poor dads dont get a choice, their wives dictate they will go to work to ensure they dont have too. It seems only women miss their children, dads can work all the hours god sends with no impact on the kids.

Women fought hard to be treated the same as men, to hand over tax allowances would take us back to the dark ages. What happens when a woman goes back to work, shes happy to work for BR tax as her husband now has her allowance or will she want her cake and eat it and take it back.

If your partner earns over the income for CB, no childcare costs or commuting etc for the other adult then state money is very much not needed. If you need extra money then work around each other so no childcare is needed but dont expect to be handed you as you dont want to work. The economy would come to a grinding hault if all women chose that.

janey68 · 31/03/2013 22:42

Ah UKIP, with their fabulous racist and disablist policies... Wonderful... Hmm

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 22:45

If CB which many wealthy dual income families are keeping,an equal footing on tax allowances so 60k single income is the same as 60k dual is wanting money yes. How about a WFA like wealthy pensioners get?

Some kind of help for the huge number of mothers up and down the country who are kept apart from dc they want to be with in the formative years.

The gov are creative when they want to be so pretty sure they could think of something.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 22:46

Where would the money come from though? We borrowed £120billion on top of all the taxes collected last year just to keep pace with our benefits / social care system. This would increase. Not sure cutting a few benefits to those you consider rich will gt anywhere near that.

I am confidently writing UKIP off right now. When chips are down they won't get anywhere near.

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 22:48

Happy many dual income families with no childcare costs are on double what many single income families are on and are keeping CB. Families on up to 300k are going to be getting gov help.Sorry you can't say it's ok for one and not the other.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 22:49

Janey I know... Grin

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 22:50

It would be a start Little and don't forget any help would go back into the economy.

janey68 · 31/03/2013 22:54

60k single income isn't the same as two people earning 30k thought thats the point. The single earner family have another adult who could contribute if they choose. The dual earners haven't- they are already earning as much as they can. And like we keep saying, there are additional costs to dual income families. Unless of course they use relatives for free childcare. But you cannot legislate against family members gifting their time and money .
Tbh you just sound like you have an incredible chip on your shoulder
kazoo, and it really doesnt make sense Because by your own admission you're doing what you want. You just want more money from the tax payer to do it! It's like Laura perrins (the woman who challenged Cameron in the tax issue). Works as a barrister, merrily pays tax as an individual, then decides she wants to be a SAHM and wants the rules to change to suit her! Thing is, I think it's backfiring big style on SAHM as its painting them all as being entitled.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 22:55

How would benefit the economy more than giving it to working parents? Economically we are better off with this system.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 22:56

If its a start where is the rest of the money going to come from?

Permanentlyexhausted · 31/03/2013 23:01

Kazooblue - ^an equal footing on tax allowances so 60k single income is the same as 60k dual is wanting money.

Presumably you'd be happy for an equal footing on working hours too then, in the interests of fairness? So the single earner would be required to work as many contracted hours as the 2 full time WOHP?

Personally I would be in favour of any benefits being calculated on total family income minus what it costs to earn that income (i.e. childcare costs would be subtracted to calculate the final total).

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 23:04

No Janey you sound like you have a chip Janey,a big one.

Of some reason you resent women having help to be with their children.

From the age of 4 children are in school.The maj of my friends work and not one uses childcare when their dc are at school bar the odd hour at after school club.They cm for each other,some work shifts,some part time,some use grandparents,aunts etc.Parents these days are creative.

50-60k singe income is a struggle.With the loss of CB,40% and only one tax allowance we're ££££££ worse off tan 2 x 30k.If you live in a high rent/mortgage area it's v tight,my dp has to cycle miles to work.I've only been out of work fir 5 years and career down the pan,would have to retrain which we can't afford,would need a second car which we can't afford etc.

All I do was have 5 years off to be with my children which they needed and wanted.Hmm

This gov is anti children and anti family.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 23:04

permanent. Good point on working hours. Never considered in that way..

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 23:08

Permanently many workers on 60k are doing waaaay more hours than somebody on 30k or under.My dp has to be there whatever the hour when a project is released,takes work home etc,works late.You do whatever it takes over contracted hours or you don't have a job.Your salary means you don't get overtime if you are paid to manage.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 31/03/2013 23:08

Hi kazoo

How vast is the vast majority of mothers you mention who would like to stay home with pre school children? What about fathers - how small is the minority there?

janey68 · 31/03/2013 23:09

Yes, exactly permanently exhausted, great point about working hours. . The point is, these people dont want a level playing field when it comes to the crunch!

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 23:10

"These people" Hmm

Mothers,fathers < shrugs>

Do fathers want to be with their dc as much?I don't know.

janey68 · 31/03/2013 23:11

Plenty of people on 30 k work way over contracted hours too. How simplistic to think that someone on bigger bucks is always working twice the hours... In fact in many jobs it's when you get to the really big money that you can afford to sit back and relax a bit more

Permanentlyexhausted · 31/03/2013 23:13

Kazoo - in some cases, maybe, but not "waaaay" more hours than 2 people each on 30K Which was the point, wasn't it.

And thankyou for the patronising explanation about what a salary means. I earn one myself and my contract states that I must work the hours it takes in order for me to do my job, but a minimum of full time. And ditto for my husband.

HappyMummyOfOne · 31/03/2013 23:14

Kazoo, seems very unfair. You need your husband to work all those hours away from his chidren yet you want the state to pay you to be with them. If it means so much to you to be with them why do you need payment?

Permnent has it spot on, you want the tax benefits of a working couple for it to be fairer so you need to work like those families in the interests of fairness.

LittleChickpea · 31/03/2013 23:15

Permanently many workers on 60k are doing waaaay more hours than somebody on 30k or under

That must be an assumption you are making that someone on £30K doesn't do similar hours to someone on more pay. The more you earn the more responsibility, expectation and pressure not always more hours.

Kazooblue · 31/03/2013 23:16

Not in my p's line of work.We've been together 22 years.The more he earns,the more hours he does.In management your ability to be there whatever is what you are pad for.

Also many second earners my be part time,still getting the full tax allowance but only working a couple of days a week.

sweetkitty · 31/03/2013 23:20

What about a single parents earning 60k and paying childcare? How is it fair that they lose CB yet next door a couple are earning 100k and are keeping it?

Both families are paying childcare, both have all adults working at the maximum.