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

AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?

731 replies

AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 14:46

So I know it's fairly old news, but the new government proposals to help working parents with childcare costs have been popping up on my BBC newsfeed this week.

Now there are plenty of things wrong with these new proposals, such as the "help" only being available for parents with under-5s to start with, and that students don't count as "employed" so if you're both/one of you are students and need childcare while you're at college you get no help at all. At least they're apparently going to count being a carer as "employed" so families where one parent stays home to care, they will get help with childcare.

However, what I don't understand is why these aren't the issues being highlighted, but instead, just people whining that SAHPs will lose out. Erm, please correct me if I'm missing some fundamental point here, but isn't that because SAHPs, by their very nature, don't need childcare!! That's why they stay at home - to look after their own children.

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

So to my mind, it's like complaining that you aren't entitled to JSA because you have a job, and saying that having JSA for those who need it is "dangling a carrot in front of people with jobs to tempt them into unemployment".

AIBU?

OP posts:
BrokenSunglasses · 06/08/2013 14:49

YANBU.

You could also have a childless person claiming that they are discriminated against for not receiving child benefit. That's how ridiculous it is.

I agree with the proposal.

Famzilla · 06/08/2013 14:51

YANBU. I don't get why SAHP's point is really. Seems like a bit of a foot stamping "it's not faaaair" tantrum to me.

Harrin · 06/08/2013 14:57

YANBU at all

SpiceAddict · 06/08/2013 15:01

Is it because the other working parent can currently can get £243 tax free vouchers (if their employer is in the scheme) but under this they will nothing at all?

LittleBearPad · 06/08/2013 15:01

YANBU at all. Typically it then gets conflated with child benefit which isn't the same issue at all. 'Tis ridiculous.

angelos02 · 06/08/2013 15:01

YANBU

I don't see the logic of their argument either.

I don't have children, shall I stamp my feet and demand child benefit?!

Crinkle77 · 06/08/2013 15:01

YANBU

ButThereAgain · 06/08/2013 15:03

Completely agree. It's absurd that this gets any airtime or brainspace at all when the real problem is that the new childcare regime will disproportionately benefit better-off parents rather than the poorest. In a context of hideous cuts made elsewhere it is obscene for SAHP to be complaining about not getting benefits that just aren't relevant for them.

NoComet · 06/08/2013 15:03

Everything in the tax and benefits system discriminates against SAHP.

Especially those married to higher rate tax payers, who would get taxed way less and get child benefit if they both worked for less.

if you choose to bring up your own children the government, what ever party they are hate you

I have long since run out of swear words suitable to express my feelings on this subject.

HurricaneWyn · 06/08/2013 15:03

Is it because the other working parent can currently can get £243 tax free vouchers (if their employer is in the scheme) but under this they will nothing at all?

I imagine this could be part of it.

mrslyman · 06/08/2013 15:06

YANBU.

Just some other points though.

AFAIK The age limit enables the budget for this to cover more people during the expensive years rather than a smaller amount of people including those with school age children where childcare does get a bit cheaper.

Regarding students, I am one so we won't be eligible for this (don't currently get vouchers as DH is self-employed), however, I do have access to massively subsidised childcare through my university, which I don't think is unique to where I study.

AngelDelightIsIndeedDelightful · 06/08/2013 15:07

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

This assumes that every SAHP is there because they want to be rather than because of economics. Childcare is so prohibitively expensive that it just doesn't make sense financially to work currently, especially if you have several children.

YANBU in wondering why it supposedly discriminates against SAHP. I can't understand that thinking at all. It surely is proposed precisely for such parents, to give them more choice over their lives.

ShadeofViolet · 06/08/2013 15:07

I absolutely agree and dont understand what the issue is. I was convinced there was something I was missing.

Unless this is a ploy to get rid of the 15 hours free childcare for 3 year olds, then I would have an issue.

Original poster
AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 15:34

Well, no, AngelDelight, if someone is a SAHP because they can't afford childcare (a horrible situation that I've been in), then with this new scheme they will hopefully be more able to go out to work. The idea that this scheme is trying to push women into work when they don't want to, though, is just ridiculous.

mrslyman - I'm a full-time student but located off a university site so cannot get any help with childcare. Luckily DH gets vouchers ATM but under the new scheme we'd get no help at all, which would mean I'd have to give up my studies. Fortunately I'll have graduated by the time this comes into place but others won't be so lucky.

Now, I get that currently anyone can claim vouchers, but I'm sorry to say I don't agree with people doing so unless they actually need childcare to go out to work. The only exception I would make to this would be someone who isn't in paid work but who uses childcare to enable them to do other unpaid work like volunteering or caring etc. If SAHMs are whining because they can't use tax-payers' money to get their DC looked-after while they go to the gym, I'm likely to get a bit angry.

OP posts:
3birthdaybunnies · 06/08/2013 15:43

I think they are pitching working parents against SAHP to distract from the gaps in the policy for example that students won't be able to claim any vouchers through their partners, neither will people earning less than 350pcm or working less than 16hrs per week, although they might have a very real need for childcare for (often) low paid work. I agree SAHP generally don't need childcare, but they are excluding a lot of low income earners/ students in order to fund people on high joint incomes.

Original poster
AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 15:46

I didn't know that about the low hours or low pay, 3bdb. So, so many flaws in this new policy. As usual Hmm.

OP posts:
ophelia275 · 06/08/2013 15:52

YABU. You could ask the same thing about working parents. Why do couples who both work need help with childcare costs? If SAHP is a lifestyle choice so is going out to work and paying someone to look after your child rather than choosing to look after your children yourself. If you choose to go out to work and pay someone to look after your child, why should the government give you money because you have made that choice yet if you stay at home and look after your child you are apparently making a "lifestyle choice"?

flatmum · 06/08/2013 15:54

I agree with you. I don't think you should be given a tax break to stay at home to look after your children because that doesn't cost 1000s of pounds a month to pay for like paying a nursery nanny or childminder does

ClassyAsALannister · 06/08/2013 15:55

Agree with 3birthdaybunnies .

It's a political version of divide and conquer. And going by a lot of threads on here it's working.

Am also a FT student atm but as it's with Open Uni I'm a bit screwed. Considering they don't want so many people on benefits they're making it awfully hard to work your way out (unless you want to settle for a shittily paid job that barely makes it worth working at all, even if your're capable of working towards a much better one that would mean you need less help from the state)!

x2boys · 06/08/2013 16:01

this is not actually a new scheme its just all companies are now offering it and its not really that great you buy upto £250 of chilcare vouchers a month and don't pay tax on it usual beauracratic arse about face way of saving a few quid but I agree I don't understand why if you don't work you would need to these vouchers in the first place!

Original poster
AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 16:05

ophelia - when both parents work, they need help with childcare costs because it's bloody expensive, and if everyone who currently works through getting help with costs suddenly didn't get help and had to quit, the economy would likely collapse.

I understand that childcare costs are high because childcare workers need to make a decent wage and we expect good standards of care. But there isn't a single developed country in this world where the government doesn't recognise the need to subsidise childcare in one way or another - either by running their own subsidised nurseries, offering tax breaks etc.

Not working really is a lifestyle choice and a recent one at that, though it's one I can understand people making if they're fortunate enough to be able to. Going out to work isn't. It's just what people have done since the dawn of time to enable civilisation and society to function.

OP posts:
mrslyman · 06/08/2013 16:05

Erm so we shouldn't try and make what are some of the highest childcare costs more affordable because some women prefer to stay at home with their children?

Also as there is also a scheme in place that helps with childcare costs I just don't buy into the argument that this is a policy aimed at opening up a divide between SAHM and WAHM/ WOHM.

I do agree with people on low incomes being excluded is flawed, but the article I read suggested that there was other help available for this. Do childcare tax credits still exist? Is that what they meant?

HurricaneWyn · 06/08/2013 16:07

x2boys - I don't work & we use the vouchers as I'm a full time student. When I'm on a ward placement I work 12 hour shifts & my DC need childcare. Under this new scheme we wouldn't get the help as I'm not working although my DH is working full time.

Original poster
AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 16:07

x2boys - this isn't about the current voucher scheme, which is due to be abolished in 2015, I think? It's about the scheme which will replace it where you can clain £1200 a month back from the government for childcare if and only if both parents work.

OP posts:
mrslyman · 06/08/2013 16:08

Annie btw not everyone can claim now. You can't if you are self-employed and even if you are employed your employer may chose not to participate in which case you can't claim vouchers.