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?

mam29 - why should my husband help fund other peoples childcare?

Seriously? I thought we'd covered this point. Your husband "funds" other people's childcare because a) we all pay taxes that go towards services we don't necessarily need ourselves and b) to allow his doctor, his account, the person who serves his lunch and his children's teachers to be at work and generally interact with him in this thing called an economy.

Can I also remind everyone that the "help" we're arguing about is £100 out of a bill of up to £1500. That's £100 less tax paid to the government, not £100 paid out by the government. Who will have received tax on the remaining £1400 firstly from the parent and then a second time from the childcare provider.

YANBU I think. SAHM don't need childcare. And Working parents should be given help because childcare is so expensive in this country - and we need some parents to work because they contribute in their taxes to the system that so many people benefit from.
Dp and I both work, aren't eligible for any kind of credits or child benefit or anything( lucky us sure cos we earn enough not to qualify, through working bloody hard our entire lives in school, college and work BTW we're both council estate kids originally)
HOWEVER I earn 40k and have 2 kids in childcare - so almost all - and I mean ALL of my take home pay goes on childcare. I am essentially for the next few years working, paying my taxes, supporting jobs in the child care sector for a few 100 quid a month.
I choose to do this because I know that I am maintaining my financial independence, can help get my career back where it was before I took 2 separate years out on maternity, I like my job, and one day I will be better off.
I don't ever see the day when I will claim other benefits from the system I pay into, so yes please help me out a bit now with child care when I really need it.

And anyway, if you use granny as free childminder then you won't be using the childcare vouchers that are at the heart of this discussion!

It just seems like we're moving into the realms of envy now...' Somebody else gets free childcare from granny, it's not fair'
Honestly, there's nothing to be gained from viewing life like that. And I speak as someone who has always paid every penny of childcare out of earned income- no tax credits or top ups. I can honestly say I've never looked at a family who get free childcare and felt hard done by in comparison.

It's pissing me off that people keep saying that the people working are our child's teachers, our GP's etc. The WOHP in our family is a member of the Armed Forces who buggers off round the world for months on end, so you're all getting your monies worth from our family!

In every family where there are children and a WOHP someone is doing the childcare. Therefore if tax breaks are able to be claimed everyone should be able to claim them. A family with a SAHP on a salary of £25k needs the money far more than a family on a salary where there are 2 WOHPs on £300k IMO.

OK janey even using your very conservative childcare estimate (which it is for the SE) - that's still approx £1900 per month for two children - still a very good salary that most couldn't realistically earn.

Yes littlemisswise couldn't agree more.

I used that example of granny

as we assuming every family has equal chances
pays same
has same childcare provison
access to jobs.

know lots of working parents who manage their childcare through
both so couple days nursery ad childmider.

does the 1200 per child dependent on how many hours child spends in childcare or is just both parents need to be in work?

ifyou used both again I give an example

childcare for year costs 9k full time

use nursery for half of it so spent 4.5 on nursery
use granny for the rest
get 1200 off nursery bill making childcare costs 2k a year.

I know at least 10people locally who do this.

im not jealous just everyone seems to be making lots of assu,ptions how much working couple contribute, earn and make.

Theremustbe: which is why any policy which helps families to pay childcare is good!

Look: I don't stand to benefit from this personally at all. When my babies were pre school, I returned to work before they were 6 months old and we paid every penny of childcare out of our income even for the period when 2 x nursery fees cost the equivalent of my income.
I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy and violins- I'm making the point that I can see WHY families with two earners need the help. And it seems supremely ironic that its the SAHM (often in the privileged position of having a HT Tax paying husband) who seem to be jumping up and down and shouting loudest about the 'unfairness' of other people getting help.

good point little miss

lots armed forces wives get shit

their hubbys away at war
being moved about all time
must be very hard for them to work
as most dont have family around them.

Janey you work as you earn enough its worth your while too.

as for all thse hardworking teachers

im guessing the hard working classroom assitants wont be earning enough to be eligible under the new scheme.

Dffrent job roles dot make people more worthy or hard working i get mad when i hear about the hard working public sector l,ike private dont!

I really think its so divisive these policies and we detracting from reasons its crap.

I am a sahm i dont expect help with childcare bur would love to share my allowance and although i kept my cb have every sympathy with ones who lost it.

if you live in south east
private rent
and pay childcare
50k gross wont go far.

My Husband is not a HT payer and my DC are too old to need childcare, Janey. However, I can see this policy is desperately unfair.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23565469

argued with janey before this.

I can see other peoples ponts of veiw.

janey can only see one point of veiw
the paths shes taken and cant understand the barriers to others doing the same.

the new scheme means couples better off splitting as the single parent earning upto 60k gets the 1200.the dua family 1earner gets diddly squat from tax creduts, childcare vouchers or child benefit.

new scheme only upto age 5
300k too high
1200 not enough of a saving to make a real difference,

i know means test expensive but least t wpuld be fair meants people in need get it and the very wealthy dont.

No, you don't have a monopoly on seeing other people's point of view.

I can absolutely see other people's perspectives. I have already said I don't agree with all the detail of the policy, but in principle I fundamentally agree with supporting families with dual earners, and I don't think the policy is unfair to SAHP.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they can't see other points of view. Very weak argument to try to resort to that.

Mine is a higher rate taxpayer (but only just), my kids are also older and I am still a SAHM - but the policy does not help those who truly need it (as opposed to those who it would be nice for), it is merely a sop to get the "squeezed" middle back on side before an election - just like the tax break he will announce in November for married couples. Which will probably not apply to those on the higher rate tax band, or widows/widdowers etc etc....

Even if I did work, we still wouldn't benefit from this policy as dc3 will be starting school in September 2015. Agree with littlemiss again though. It is unfair. janey, you really do seem to have a huge issue with SAHM, particularly those married to HRT payers. It really comes across in your posts

The thing is this is still open to consultation so we need to highlight these gaps so that they can be addressed. I won't benefit at all from these changes as my dc are all too old, but like littlemisswise I can see the flaws and I agree to an extent with Janey that some help is better than no help, but seeing as they are asking though probably won't listen why not tell them that families earning 300K don't need this help, students and families where one parent is working but on low hours should still be eligible? A parent working just 8hrs a week or a student is likely in the future to be contributing more in the future so should be encouraged. Maybe the help should stop when one person earns above 150 or both over higher tax rate. Or bung it and tax credits, child benefit etc all into universal credit and let anyone who thinks they qualify apply. SAHP putting their dc into a nursery for 2hrs so they can go to the gym in the day probably shouldn't qualify - although obviously nothing wrong with choosing to do that.

But littlemiss, it's not really a tax break as such is it? It's not like dual income families get to spend it on whatever they choose? A dual income family with grandparents caring for the kids won't get £1,200 a year to spend on something else will they?

So to say everyone should get it seems a bit pointless, it is targeted help for a particular cost.

It's like saying instead of free school meals everyone should be given £50 a month to spend on what they want. Because it's not fair that some get more help than others.

How about tax breaks for commuter costs? Dh spends thousands on commuting and I'd say it's a pretty essential part of getting to work.

No issue at all with SAHM. Up to couple to decide what they want to do. I'd be a SAHM if I wanted to- and if I did I would be honest enough to admit that and I wouldn't expect govt help for the decisions.

The reason I raised the issue is because in the wider media the issue has been hijacked primarily by SAHM with HR tax paying husbands- there was a massive thing in the news recently about it, with their spokeswoman claiming it was so unfair to be losing CB and wanting transferable tax allowance (funny that these people never want to be taxed as one person when they are both working prior to having children!) It just strikes me that this demographic is hardly going to elicit sympathy. Most people want support for low waged and people struggling to work and pay childcare fees.

The only person I recall talking about this in the media is that Laura Perrins, the ex barrister. I would agree that listening to her does not elicit much sympathy. The issue I have is with the cut offs for CB vs the cut offs for this. There are many much poorer families that will not qualify for this and I don't think that is right.

In principle you're right - SAHP shouldn't be annoyed about this as they don't have any childcare costs so what is there to complain about? In reality, they DO have childcare costs. Giving up one salary is a HUGE cost. Families like littlemiss should undoubtedly be given help above those families with two high earning, working parents. The system is nuts.

Couldn't agree more soverylucky

I agree with the idea of this policy, but reading though this thread I am struck by how weird it is that so many SAHPs seem to need validation for their place in the world. It seems a bit pathetic to me.

If you are happy with your choice and you are doing what you consider to be the best for your family, why do you need to be validated in any way by other people or the tax system? Its not a policy that has any effect whatsoever on people who don't pay for childcare.