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

[AnnieLobeseder]

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?

Oh for gods sake theremustbe are you seriously not aware of how much your post proves the opposite of its intent?

The lifestyle choice for the couple on £45k each is for one of them not to work and their income halve?
The lifestyle choice for the couple on a single £60k income is for the SAHp to go out to work and add more money to the household.

Very different.

Plus the dual income pair pay a third more tax and add that £1050 back to the economy by paying for childcare.

And yes, agree with the others: you are even comparing 2 different incomes : 60k and 90k. If amythjng, your figures show just how little difference there is for the family with 2 earners. You are also very conservative in your estimation of childcare costs.
Theremustbeanotherexplanation: you also mentioned earlier: 'what if the first family; with the single earner on 60k, can't afford for the other partner to go back to work?'
You make the common error of seeing childcare costs as the sole responsibility of the second earner ( usually the mother) It isn't. If one partner is earning 60k then even if the other partner is on a much lower income, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to afford childcare out of their joint income. And besides, many of us have been in the position when where childcare costs are at their highest, you may actually be working for no financial gain temporarily... You have to take a long term view

One thing I do think is a general observation, is that the policies work best for families where both partners have similar earning power, rather than one partner commanding a very high salary and the other earning pin money. I don't know whether that's an intended purpose of the policy or simply am outcome of it. Personally I don't have a problem with it though , because it assumes that women and men are equally capable and equally likely to enter the middle/high earning professions. That's far preferable to policies which assume that one partner (ie father) earns well but has a wife who can't. That would be a terrible indictment and hardly aspirational for our daughters (or sons)

Janey 2 on 45 are not going to have less disposable income than one on 60- far from it.

They'll have an extra tax allowance,CB and a stonking extra salary. If there dc are at school they're laughing.

Their

Said family could save for the years prior to their dc starting school at 4 like many do and like sahp do to enable their 'lifestyle'.

Exactly retro. I give up. Everything I've said has been taken out of context. Never mind. I've stated again and again, no, some SAHP do not 'have the choice to go out to work and add to their income'. As it would cost them to do so. Maybe you have an extra few hundred pounds lying around every month for this worthy cause but unfortunately I, and many others, don't.

Two on 45k each will have more income than one on 60k. But two on 60k between them won't.

Equally, one on 90k has more than one on 60k. Obviously.

And also... (Although I really should give up). I did my example with the intention of using a higher earning joint couple, as if they are earning more, why exactly do they need help?

Look at the figures: it's not a massive difference . And if you were actually comparing like with like ( ie 2 workers on 30k) there would be even less difference.

As for the children being at school: you still have to pay before and after school care and full time holiday care. Yeap, it's cheaper than the all year round thousands that are paid out while the kids are pre school but its still an expense.

I can't help but chuckle at the irony in some ways: I'm often reading on threads that a mum with school age children can't go back to work because of the logistics and expense of organising childcare every morning, from 3 15 to 6 every day, and all through the school hols and Inservice days... Yet suddenly when we're talking about a working couple who are doing exactly that, they're 'rolling in it' and apparently having such an easy time of it

Theremjstbe I have tried not to take what you say out of context. I agree that for some families it is too expensive for the second parent to go back to work. I think this policy does not do enough to make that possible, though it is intended to do just that, of course. Bt they haven't spent enough on it.

I dont receive tax credits so always bit confused.

There was the requirement to both be in work for min of 16hours to get working tax credit to which theres a childcare element.

If you were unemployed or only on 1 low income then there used to be the child tax credit.

I belive the the thresholds changed for that as we used to get £10 week child tax credts and lost last year.

think its 26 with 1 child cutting off at 32k with 3kids but I could be wrong.

I did find out a few things through the hm website which kind of baffled me

If you've come to the UK but your family has stayed behind
If your family lives in another European Economic Area (EEA) country or Switzerland you may be able to claim tax credits for them. You'll need to be a national of an EEA country or Switzerland yourself.

Does this mean that the polish pumber can come over here work in low paid job pay just basic tax then get money back and send to family not even living in this country?

I know its same as pensoners in spain and abroad getting winter fuel allowance guess.

Where as a sahm i guess pre having kids could have paid shed loads into system pre kids an most are just taking a career break and would ove to go back to work.

To make work pay with childcare you need to be quite good average earnings, have free childcare family know lots who rely on grandparents so do seem quite a lot more affluent or 1 works part tme unsocialble hours aroun ain earners shift so does not require childcare.
I also imagine a term time job you be better off with kids of school age.

its the unfairness if 60k limit for cb the should be same for this.

just looked at mse this is how it currently works

1 parent has to be working to claim.

g).

How many vouchers can you buy?

Basic rate tax payers (and higher/top rate payers who joined before 5 April 2011 as long as they don't take a break from the childcare voucher scheme of more than 12 months) can pay for up to £243 of childcare with vouchers each month (£55/week). This is PER PARENT so two working parents could get £486 a month of vouchers.

From 6 Apr 2011 new joiners paying higher or top rate tax had their allowance dropped so that all tax payers have roughly the same maximum tax gain. From April 2013 the limits are:

Basic (20%) Taxpayer. £55/week vouchers, max annual gain £930.

Higher (40%) Taxpayer. £28/week voucher, max annual gain £630.

Top (45%) Taxpayer. £25/week voucher, max annual gain £590.

If to get vouchers you need to sacrifice some of your salary, this can have an impact on other elements of your finances that depend on how much you earn - such as pension contributions, maternity pay and more-so it saves you now but costs you later as its nota gift it salary sacrafice.

There are a few circumstnaces in which you could still gain getting vouchers, for example if your childcare costs are above £175 a week for one child or £300 for two or more children.

If you can't claim tax credits then you will ALWAYS be better off using vouchers to pay for childcare, as you have no tax credits to be affected.

also suggest everyone reads this link comparing schemes too long cut and paste has actual aounts for each tax papyer had no idea current scheme went upto age 15 could have sworn it was 12.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2013/03/government-childcare-costs-revamp-winners-losers

I also know the child benefit is seperate issue.

the new child beneft as tapers off between 50-60k .

so any salary sacrafice wether it be pensions, childcare, bike to work schemes actually lowers salarys so means get to keep more cb this owuld be case if earned early 50s gross.

seems wrong 2earner supto 100k keep
that 2earners upto 300k get help.
yet family of 50-60k one earner as sahm has sacraficed her wages as wealthy.

why should my husband help fund other peoples childcare?

A lot of sahm dont get benefits so the state is not subsidising their lfestyle choce.

its the unfairness and the inequality of so many of the policies.

also does anyone think this could be abused by people with own businesses who hire accountants as on paper they can lower their salary and make their sahm wife an employee?

dont mps employ their spouses.

wonder if their child care is paid for or subsidises as know house of commons has a nursery.

Also the joys of self assessment my driving instructor i might get new pad claim its for the job as thats tax deductable. so much more flexabilty in self employment a good accountant can be creative and save loads.

Theremjstbe.. The problem is, you gave your example in a way that suggested the two families were comparable. And they are not, so it was misleading.

Anyway, not flouncing off or anything or making a point, but actually I really do have to go now and deliver youngest DC to a holiday activity. Talk later perhaps.

2 x 45 is £5680 a month with CB for 3

1 x 60 is £3465 minus any pension provision for the sahp,long therm impact on career

Childcare x 3school age would be £100 a week,less if help from grandparents,club days,older secondary etc.

Now unless the second working parent is being chauffeur driven to work I fail to see how they're vastly worse off than the single salary family.

Theremustbeanotherexplanation- you keep raising the issue of a parent not being able to afford to work. But parents on low incomes ready get a significant chunk of childcare paid for. This policy extends help to more families. I don't see why you keep raising this point. What actual figures are you talking about, where a family cannot afford to go to work? The only scenario I can think of is where they have chosen to have a large family which is in itself a lifestyle choice. I also think its entirely normal (at least it was to people of my generation who had their children a few years back) that you don't expect to be quids in when your children are small. When we had two at nursery, there was a period of time when we literally would have been as well off if I'd stopped working. Any policy which improves that situation is good though- and this does

Thanks beastof. I really do see the issues on both sides, I'm just trying to point out that it's not black and white. All parents incur childcare costs, whether by paying for it or sacrificing a salary. It just baffles me as to why one is seen by some as a 'lifestyle choice' while the other is seen as an 'unavoidable expense' that deserves some taxpayer support. Surely they are both roughly equal in terms of overall houshold cost/ expense?!

Childcare for 3 school age children £100 a week?! Are you having a laugh? Do you pay your child minder peanuts?

janey. Virtually any family where one parent earns over the limit for wtc/ctc with more than one preschool age child will not be able to afford to work. Nursery care for two children can be up to £3k ish per month, not many people's take that home after tax.

People! Should have previewed...

Oops forgot to take off the help re childcare from the gov on top for the 2 working- they're massively better off!

School lib very reasonable round here,most have some kind of help too.

Club is £6 a session here,not all parents are paying London prices or for full time care either.

Familes vary.

Retropear - the help for childcare stops at 5

I'm really confused now.

There is a policy that is designed to make it possible for two parents in a family to work without childcare costs making them worse off.

This policy clearly does not go far enough if it is not giving enough support to meet this stated aim.

But I don't understand how some people are arguing that the conclusion of this is that there should be no help for childcare costs for families where both parents work and earn £45k? That seems to be the gist of the argument now and I just don't understand?

Well, my childminder charges £5 per hour per child which seems about average. That's an hour before school every day, 2 and half hours after school. Plus school holidays and in service days. I have 2 children so that's £175 per week on a cheap week ( ie no school hols)
Admittedly a fraction of what nursery used to cost (shudder) but still an expense.

As for the fact that some parents use granny as a free childminder, well, you can't legislate against some people getting something for free... And that isn't something that can be relied on or assumed. Yes, I can see that a dual earning family who use granny like that and pay her nothing are going to be very well off compared to mr and mrs bloggs paying nursery fees. But I suspect families who use free childcare pay for it in other ways - just read some of the dire threads on MN! And seriously, like I say, what's the point in comparing ? Some parents give their adult children deposits to buy a house - seems unbelievable to many of us, but a gift is a gift, whether its childminding or a house deposit. No one is entitled to it, if they get it, it's a bonus. But like I say, many people prefer to stand on their own two feet anyway as these 'gifts' often come with strings attached

im not sure whats happening when universil tax credits

but to get working tax credits

you need to be workinging upto 24hours combined as a couple

or 24hours as ingle parent

thats great if employers are giving 24hours most giving zero-8hours-16hours with hours changing every week which makes tax credits very complex.

heard far too many horror stories of people being overoaid then clawe back and living in poverty.

The new scheme requires both parentts to be earning 10k each so 20k in total to get the 1200 per child. I did think this must be 29hours at nmw but martin lewis disagrees

(2) You can only claim vouchers if you earn the national minimum wage, around £11,300 for 35 hours a week if you're over 21.

that implies all the families where1works fulltme and other works n superket lose out.

as 35hours is fullltime.

sadly we n a time where good qualified experence people get made redundant from well paid jobs and only jobs avaialible are low pai and competative.

They think ohh i might go back uni and retrain and 1 parent stays in work to support that.
but tehy still need childcare.

i belive university/college childcare funds are discretionary and hard to get combined with 9k a year tuition fees.

mean the redundant parent

has to get lower paid job than only job
cat afford to retarin for job that earns more and probablt pay more tax and mean they have no relance on benefit system.

1200 when childcares 9k a year fulltime means if go out get fulltime min wage job at say 10k a year.

with 2kids in nursery

i would be paying 18k nursery
getting 2400 back
earning 10k

6defecit

ok i earn 20k
get 2400 back
i make 2k gross

add commute costs

god knows whqat do wth 7year old they dont do afterschool clubs.

work has to pay and with childcare being so expensive this wont tempt many back

the obs have to be there
the affordable chuldcare has to be there
it has to make financial sense.

I know when we both worked fulltime both of us got questionsed over commitment t5o job role she dd1 was sick.